I confess to back pedaling into Trump territory when I wanted to leave discussions about him in the garbage can. My thread on the read-only break room site has 9,600 replies so I thought I'd bring up a new one.
He's not going away.
Haberman's book is out based on interviews. I won't read it, but the excerpts are interesting. Especially what he says about McConnell, a description that's against the Terms of Service here, but I actually don't disagree with. LOL
Quote
“At one point, Trump made a candid admission that was as jarring as it was ultimately unsurprising. ‘The question I get asked more than any other question: “If you had it to do again, would you have done it?”’Trump said of running for president. ‘The answer is, yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.’ … Reflecting on the meaning of having been president of the United States, his first impulse was not to mention public service, or what he felt he’d accomplished, only that it appeared to be a vehicle for fame, and that many experiences were only worth having if someone else envied them.”
Why do you think the plea deals are a talking point for Trump voters? Those admissions of guilt don't make Trump look innocent.
I never said that. You asked me what's not right about it and I answered with "some people" don't like plea deals, and made no reference to Trump supporters.
But Beerman did make a talking point of it to negatively paint liberals, to me it's a stretch: It's mystifying (I say sarcastically) that liberals don't seem to mind the "guilty" parties getting off so easily when supposedly it's such a strong case against them all. (The use of quotes around guilty I find interesting as well, when they pleaded guilty.)
I acknowledge this is off topic of Trump, but instead of saying "some people" I did a little deeper dive. Like I said in the context of getting people to plea in order for the greater good, I might be okay with that. But I'm not okay with some criminals such as rapists being able to plea.
Quote
In a country that prides itself on being a beacon of democracy, the rule of law, the protection of human rights and enlightened justice policies, the exponential growth of plea bargaining is instead a clear signal that the American justice system is not working that well, that, on the contrary, is being skewed and distorted by the confluence of several negative factors.
Several studies indicate that the public disapproves of plea bargaining, the most common method of resolving cases in the criminal system. However, such studies assume a common understanding of plea bargaining with no basis for this assumption.
Most criminal cases in the United States (between 95-98%) are resolved by guilty plea (Alkon, 2016, 2017; Burke, 2007; Edkins, 2011; O'Hear, 2008). Although researchers have begun to examine the processes and outcomes of plea-bargaining (see for example, Redlich & Summers, 2012; Sacks, 2011; Stephens, 2013; Zottoli, Daftary-Kapur, Winters, & Hogan, 2016), there is little research on how the public perceives the practice of plea bargaining. Current evidence, however, suggests that people hold negative attitudes toward plea bargains. In one survey examining public opinions of the legal system, for example, Fagan (1981) found that 82% of respondents disapproved of plea-bargaining in the United States. Similarly, a survey conducted by Cohen and Doob (1989) revealed that 79% of Canadians disapproved of plea-bargaining. For both of these surveys, however, the cause of participants' dissatisfaction with plea-bargaining remains unclear.
Naaah - I read the post under discussion an ill-informed attempt to minimize anything that might document trump's lawlessness. The silly riff about liberals was supposed to make us defensive. Pure static.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Tweety said:
I never said that. You asked me what's not right about it and I answered with "some people" don't like plea deals, and made no reference to Trump supporters.
But Beerman did make a talking point of it to negatively paint liberals, to me it's a stretch: It's mystifying (I say sarcastically) that liberals don't seem to mind the "guilty" parties getting off so easily when supposedly it's such a strong case against them all. (The use of quotes around guilty I find interesting as well, when they pleaded guilty.)
I acknowledge this is off topic of Trump, but instead of saying "some people" I did a little deeper dive. Like I said in the context of getting people to plea in order for the greater good, I might be okay with that. But I'm not okay with some criminals such as rapists being able to plea.
My question was poorly worded. I didn't intend to imply that you said anything about Trump supporters. You did sort of answer the question, which I appreciate. It's difficult to understand the knee jerk responses of so many conservative voters when it comes to bad press about Trump's many flaws and failures. The psychology is fascinating and dangerous.
Yes, it's all about getting Trump. But I also look at it like those the case was strong enough against the three that they knew they were toast so they got a deal to save their own butts.
It is a long standing tried and true technique of investigators to offer plea deals to the minor players in exchange for cooperation and turning states evidence against a bigger criminal. It's not mystifying to me at all. They do this to catch big fish drug dealers, murders, all sorts of things. It may not be right but it's not mystifying to me.
In some cases it is indeed outrageous, like when a rapist pleads "no contest" and gets two years in prison in a plea. I get it.
Yes, I know it's a common thing to do, for a variety of reasons. It's not a all or nothing thing though, usually.
She's pleading to misdemeanors and getting probation and a fine. Misdemeanors aren't going to impact her life in any way, the fine is nothing to her, and probation should be easy enough...just a pain in her rear for awhile.
She was accused of being complicit in trying to overturn a presidential election. If the case against Trump is as strong as some want us to believe, why would they need her testimony so bad as to really give her almost no punishment?
The number of defendents and charges brought about, including RICO charges meant to bring down organized crime enterprises, and the fact that most of them will be whittled down to almost nothing, just shows they're throwing everything at the wall so that just enough sticks to bring down Trump.
Liberals and Trump haters are OK with that. Don't know why some here are reluctant to admit it.
Yes, I know it's a common thing to do, for a variety of reasons. It's not a all or nothing thing though, usually.
She's pleading to misdemeanors and getting probation and a fine. Misdemeanors aren't going to impact her life in any way, the fine is nothing to her, and probation should be easy enough...just a pain in her rear for awhile.
She was accused of being complicit in trying to overturn a presidential election. If the case against Trump is as strong as some want us to believe, why would they need her testimony so bad as to really give her almost no punishment?
The number of defendents and charges brought about, including RICO charges meant to bring down organized crime enterprises, and the fact that most of them will be whittled down to almost nothing, just shows they're throwing everything at the wall so that just enough sticks to bring down Trump.
Liberals and Trump haters are OK with that. Don't know why some here are reluctant to admit it.
I can't disagree with any of this. I get what you're saying that tampering with an election is a serious charge and they are getting a slap on the wrist. I'm okay with it the same way I would be okay with a drug dealer getting a misdemeanor charge to name their source.
They are lawyers, they know how to say "I have something you need but what do I get out of it". Or maybe they are innocent and like a company settling out of court, just want it done and out of the way and the case against them isn't that strong so the State agreed. Many innocent people are convinced to take a plea because the consequences of getting convicted are worse.
Maybe Georgia tampered with the election and they are patriots defending democracy and Trump really won the election.
Liberals seem to be okay with this because it seems to indicate that it's not a witch hunt, that they indeed are guilty. We are concentrating on the guilty admissions and what it means down the road, rather than the plea.
Powell in particular seemed to be part of the inner circle of people making plans and she could have gotten some serious time. Her testimony is extremely valuable. Trump removed her from his team in 2020 so there probably is no love between them. Being loyal to Trump and a conspiracy theorist has gotten her into a whole lot of trouble but she's a quack, she might be going through the motions and still believing in him that they did no wrong and that Trump won the election and Georgia is covering something up.
And yes, liberals are salivating at the thought of Trump's house of cards falling down. I'm still not hopeful but you have to admit three people pleading guilty doesn't look good for him. You can focus on liberals being okay with plea bargains, but I'm looking at a bigger picture.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Yes, I know it's a common thing to do, for a variety of reasons. It's not a all or nothing thing though, usually.
She's pleading to misdemeanors and getting probation and a fine. Misdemeanors aren't going to impact her life in any way, the fine is nothing to her, and probation should be easy enough...just a pain in her rear for awhile.
She was accused of being complicit in trying to overturn a presidential election. If the case against Trump is as strong as some want us to believe, why would they need her testimony so bad as to really give her almost no punishment?
The number of defendents and charges brought about, including RICO charges meant to bring down organized crime enterprises, and the fact that most of them will be whittled down to almost nothing, just shows they're throwing everything at the wall so that just enough sticks to bring down Trump.
Liberals and Trump haters are OK with that. Don't know why some here are reluctant to admit it.
Yes. The entire point of the RICO laws was the prosecution of the crime boss, not just the underlings who had a job but who were not the beneficiaries of the scheme. It's pretty basic stuff. Trump is the boss of these crimes so the intention is to prosecute him, that's why he is indicted and set to stand trial. It's funny that you think we are reluctant to admit the fact that Trump is the primary target of the RICO prosecution. It's clear that Trump is the target. What's "funny" is the reluctance to associate Trump with his own plan or the people who tried to carry out the plan, now that the plan has resulted in indictments and guilt pleas.
Most people who go through their lives following laws and rules and recommendations aren't that sympathetic about giving criminals "deals". Tweety wrote a nice essay on the relevant sidebar in the discussion of Trump's legal hell.
This is the best defense of Trump in conservative media; criticize the process and the people every step of the way. That's the pattern that we've observed ever since Trump rode down that escalator.
Are all of the Trump haters conservative or republican? Most of the witness testimony against Trump is going to, and has already, come from Republicans. Does that make them Trump haters? What and who does the Trump hater category include these days? The attorneys and judges? Anyone who doesn't take Trump's side?
Specializes in Peds/outpatient FP,derm,allergy/private duty.
toomuchbaloney said:
Are all of the Trump haters conservative or republican? Most of the witness testimony against Trump is going to, and has already, come from Republicans. Does that make them Trump haters? What and who does the Trump hater category include these days? The attorneys and judges? Anyone who doesn't take Trump's side?
Quote
Most of the witness testimony against Trump is going to, and has already, come from Republicans.
When I look back at scandals which have occurred in my lifetime, I'm amazed at how little attention this concept attracts compared to those.
I'm beginning to think a larger political realignment is taking place, and that probably it is better to be spearheaded by factions within his own party.
I've been doing lots of reading about the McCarthy era) which is known primarily for the destructive Red Scare crusade, I've been surprised to see how similarly things proceeded during his rise and fall within the Republican party itself when Joseph McCarthy was the central character, as is Donald Trump presently. If the senator's early success and popularity had Eisenhower reluctant to call him out, I know the personality cult is a more powerful force than I had realized.
One of the GOP senators involved in the censure effort didn't read his hate mail until years later, and published some in his book. It was MAGA stuff almost word for word.
In a way it makes me hopeful, but it will take time to play itself out.
Yes, I also agree with you about the RICO laws having application beyond organized crime, unless white collar corporate criminal conspiracies fall under that category.
Jenna Ellis, a former lawyer for Donald Trump's 2020 campaign, pleaded guilty Tuesday to illegally conspiring to overturn Trump's 2020 election loss in Georgia, making her the third attorney associated with the former president to accept a plea deal in the sweeping criminal racketeering case.
Ellis, who had been facing two charges including violating Georgia's anti-racketeering act, pleaded guilty in court Tuesday morning to a reduced charge of aiding and abetting false statements and writings. The deal allows her to avoid jail time in exchange for providing evidence that could potentially implicate other defendants and agreeing to testify in any future trials.
[...]
And another plea deal, with the expected stipulation to testify in the upcoming trials.
Why it matters: She is the fourth of 19 co-defendants in the Georgia election subversion case to plead guilty — and the third in less than a week.
Driving the news: She pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings, according to a court filing before she pleaded guilty in court.
In addressing the court after she accepted the plea deal, Ellis said that she relied on attorneys with "many more years of experience" than her.
"If I knew then what I know now, I would have declined to represent Donald Trump in these post-election challenges."
"I look back on this whole experience with deep remorse," she said Tuesday.
State of play: Prosecutors recommended that Ellis serve five years of probation, pay $5,000 in restitution and testify truthfully at all future hearings involving co-defendants.
It is also recommended that Ellis serve 100 hours of community service and write an apology letter to the citizens of Georgia.
She feels remorse. Since she will now be testifying in the prosecution's case, does that make her a Trump hater?
In other Trump news, did anyone else see the clip of Trump's campaign speech where he seems to have just figured out that if you abbreviate United States it uses the same letters as the word "us"? Very bizarre stuff from the stable genius.
In other Trump news, did anyone else see the clip of Trump's campaign speech where he seems to have just figured out that if you abbreviate United States it uses the same letters as the word "us"? Very bizarre stuff from the stable genius.
In the same speech he refers to Victor Orban ( leader of Hungary) as the leader of Turkey, calls himself Nelson Mandela, and says he will prevent immigrants "who don't like our religion" from entering the United States. Oh, and he said his supporters don't have to vote.
Tweety, BSN, RN
36,367 Posts
I never said that. You asked me what's not right about it and I answered with "some people" don't like plea deals, and made no reference to Trump supporters.
But Beerman did make a talking point of it to negatively paint liberals, to me it's a stretch: It's mystifying (I say sarcastically) that liberals don't seem to mind the "guilty" parties getting off so easily when supposedly it's such a strong case against them all. (The use of quotes around guilty I find interesting as well, when they pleaded guilty.)
I acknowledge this is off topic of Trump, but instead of saying "some people" I did a little deeper dive. Like I said in the context of getting people to plea in order for the greater good, I might be okay with that. But I'm not okay with some criminals such as rapists being able to plea.
https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-droit-penal-2012-1-page-109.htm
https://www.proquest.com/openview/cfcdffc44853826a1800d885d9750d2f/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=7636#:~:text=Several studies indicate that the,no basis for this assumption.
https://dev.cjcenter.org/_files/apcj/Khogali - Fairness for All.pdf_1548281923.pdf