I think that's overstated.
First of all, it was the Magna Carta which established that the king was not above the law, so in that sense the founding of the United States was more "and we don't need a king".
Second, there are frequently legal discussions in the present day as to whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime, so there is at least a substantial idea that there is some "sovereign immunity" (quotes because that's not what sovereign immunity refers to)
Third, the founders were also well aware of the threat of political motives for prosecutions and wanted to diminish them with various balance of power checks and balances.
That is similar to the immunity given to the sitting US President. What is different is that monarch is not really expected to obey the law either. For example, the Prime Minister was fined for illegally not wearing a seatbelt. If the king didn’t wear a seatbelt, it would not be a big deal - the royal family freely ignore traffic laws (and more serious laws) without consequences. Queen Elizabeth did agree to start paying taxes, but there was never any suggestion that she be compelled to pay taxes, merely that it would be the right thing to do.
The thing about Britain's constitutional arrangements is that there are many things which 'can't' be done, which it turns out simply 'aren't' done.
There are also all the laws the monarch / monarch’s lawyers interfered with e.g. police can’t enter Sandringham Estate without an invite, leaseholders on the Duchy of Cornwall are excluded from buying their freehold
What is sovereign immunity?
Sovereign immunity is a centuries-old doctrine dictating that the monarch cannot be prosecuted or subject to civil legal action under the law. Its origin lies in doctrine and convention, rather than statute, and there is no law setting out the rules underpinning the concept.
It stems partly from the medieval concept that the monarch is the source of justice, and can therefore do no wrong. It also relies on an argument that because the courts belong to the Queen she cannot be compelled to appear in them, since she would, in effect, be prosecuting herself.
Since at least 1800, the monarch has also had a legally distinct private persona, created to allow them to have independent wealth and property that could be inherited by their children. However, the lines between the two are somewhat blurred, and sovereign immunity has typically been interpreted to apply to both the public and private identities of the monarch.
We take it for granted now, but it was a beginning of constitutional order - king and government should follow certain laws and rules for how to run the country. And the UK is after all a constitutional monarchy, no longer at mercy to the whims of an autocratic monarch.
The social/civil consequences of this sort of criminal indictment before election is enough to kill a presidential campaign and has enough times in history. As it should be.
This is behaviour before/after presidency when the stakes are far lower.
This just plays to Trump's strength as the ultimate rebel.
In terms of game theory, this is a very different game than Nixon or Bush. Trump annihilated the Bush Legacy, and is hated by both sides of the establishment.
That juice is not worth the squeeze.
It is so tragic and disappointing.
In Germany for example we have sort of an "updated" version, with lessons learned. But one thing I actually want changed is that members of parliament have actual real immunity. Not in the practical sense - immunity for individual members has historically always been waived by parliament at the slightest whiff of an investigation. But the example of Trump teaches us that it is a fallacy to trust in the decency of politicians and unwritten rules.
It’s why they didn’t stick him on emoluments, nepotism, tax dodging - even “improperly storing classified documents” somehow turned out to be a brush too broad.
So now Alvin Bragg is (supposedly) indicting him for campaign finance violations. Okay. He’s probably guilty. But both Obama and Hillary paid fines for the exact same crime. So did John Edwards, for a VERY similar situation to the Stormy Daniels thing iirc.
This isn’t whataboutism - my point is that, if this indictment goes forward with the rumored rationale, every single politician will now have to watch their ass on campaign funds for the foreseeable future lest the opposing party find out.
That’s a good thing for America and a very obnoxious thing for the entire political class. I suspect Alvin Bragg is getting many angry phone calls tonight from folks who would otherwise like to fire Trump into the sun.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/22/election-law-violatio...
Potentially we could see several other indictments. Such as the Federal cases for the classified documents and the Georgia case for interfering with an election.
This is just the first one. Doesn’t have to be the last nor does it mean he is instantly ruled guilty and is going to prison or paying a fine. He will have his chance in court to make a case for his innocence in the face of these specific charges.
The United States has many local prosecutors that operate independently within their jurisdictions and are not bound to hold their charges in deference to some other charges that may be more serious coming later.
They very clearly have the capability to coordinate the entire media apparatus, law enforcement, etc to cuff a sitting Governor and quickly send him to a federal pit and down the memory hole for essentially the exact same sort of quid pro quo that was underpinning the first Trump impeachment.
Trump isn’t Phoenix Wright, he’s only still a free man because the Blob either can’t come to a consensus on “Blago’ing” him - or else the constant “The walls are closing in on Drumpf THIS time” drama is serving a larger purpose.
It's not the job of all those intelligence agencies to do that. This is a law and order question, which must be handled by the legal system, not the NSA and CIA.
The alleged crime happened 8 years ago by now. Some more recent misdeeds might still yield more indictments.
The jurisdiction is New York state, where Trump's status as former president is irrelevant (unlike insurrection related issues, which I guess are federal, and therefore for which his status as sitting president would've made impeachment the remedy rather than criminal prosecution).
There is a cooperating witness spilling the beans on this one. On his mini coup attempt, maybe they were a bit better at containing associates.
I'm sorry, I'll try to reword it to come across differently. My whole question is: Why hasn't he been indicted of bigger/harsher crimes already?
I think that's a perfectly reasonable question. The basic answer I'd give is that the bigger/harsher a crime is the longer it takes to build as a case.
The bigger or harsher a crime is, it usually has more protections and requirements in order to prove. It takes longer to gather the relevant evidence, longer to put together a theory of the case, and longer to button everything down and present to a grand jury.
It's kind of like asking why it takes developers longer to build the biggest/coolest features in a video games. It's a lot more work!
This was also a question that came up quite frequently when the first Jan 6th defendants were charged. The first wave of defendants were charged with things like "trespassing" and other fairly mild charges. A lot of people were upset about that. But they just came first because they were much easier cases to proves and make. Eventually more serious charges such as "assault with a deadly weapon", "obstructing congress" and "seditious conspiracy" were later charged and convicted in front of a jury.
So, I generally wouldn't be surprised to see the easier/simpler cases come before more complicated cases. That's not to say that he will be charged with bigger/harsher crimes. Maybe the facts won't bear those cases out, and they won't be charged. But the ordering doesn't seem like it should be particularly surprising.
did he or did he not incite an insurrection on January 6th? there was an entire committee about it. he did, right? ok... so... not indicted, got it, moves slowly
did he have classified documents when he shouldn't have? yes. not indicted
did he do something wrong in regards to votes in georgia? yes. not indicted
i guess i just don't get it shrug it's as if like... based on the fact that he hasn't been indicted, you can conclude... he didn't do anything illegal, because if he did, he'd be indicted, right?
At the federal level, Jack Smith is currently investigating the January 6th case, the related forgery of documents, and the classified documents. Since he's a special prosecutor if he declines to indict on the things in his remit he's required to file a report to Merrick Garland with his declination decision and reasoning. That hasn't happened yet.
Similarly for Georgia, a Special Grand Jury made a report recommending he be indicted. That then goes to a Grand Jury, which will make the decision on whether he be indicted. That Grand Jury hasn't sat yet, so that's also in process.
So, all of those things are in process. They haven't made a decision not to indict yet, so it's incorrect to draw conclusions assuming he won't be indicted for those things yet. It's too early to say, for each of the things you identified.
> did he or did he not incite an insurrection on January 6th? there was an entire committee about it. he did, right? ok... so... not indicted, got it, moves slowly
The latest on this is that Mike Pence is going to appear before that grand jury: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/28/judge-says-pence-mu...
So the correct status is not yet indicted.
> did he have classified documents when he shouldn't have? yes. not indicted
Latest status: Some of Trump's lawyer's records must be presented to the court:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/22/trump-court-rejects...
not yet indicted.
> did he do something wrong in regards to votes in georgia? yes. not indicted
Trump's lawyer there is fighting to avoid him being indicted (as you'd expect):
In a 483-page filing, Trump’s attorney Drew Findling urged a state court in Georgia to prohibit an Atlanta-area district attorney there from filing charges related to Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/20/trump-georgia-indic...
not yet indicted.
The legal system is slow, but I think it's fair to say that in all these cases the legal teams are being very careful because bringing a case against a former President is unprecedented, and they want to be sure it is a good case.
Does it suck that it’s taking so long? Of course. Unfortunately, that’s how the system works.
EDIT: To back this up, from Wikipedia:
In the United States, impeachment is a remedial rather than penal process,[13][14]: 8 intended to "effectively 'maintain constitutional government' by removing individuals unfit for office";[14]: 8 persons subject to impeachment and removal remain "liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to LawProsecutors in their respective jurisdictions should look for crimes and prosecute if they see malfeasance. In the case of NY, these are the charges that were at the top of the priority list for that one prosecutor. Multiple other prosecutors are looking at crimes in other jurisdictions and I would expect Trump to be facing charges in at least 2 and maybe 3 or 4 courtrooms on entirely independent indictments.
They will do ANYTHING to stop him out of fear, anger, arrogance etc. The problem here is Trump is an expert at reflection. This HAS ALREADY empowered his base, and strengthened Ron Desantis.
I think the hardest part to accept is nearly half the nation DOES NOT AGREE with progressive principles at their very core.
Wasn't that just a political play? Given that America as a society at large is pretty conservative, even within the Democrats base, pandering to opposing gay marriage gives a net positive voting.
It's like if your baseball team lost a game and saying "yeah, but they had the fewest batters struck out!" OK... but that's not how the winner is determined, and both teams would have played differently if it were. We can't know what the outcome would have been, in that case.
Also, broadly speaking, being progressive means wanting change and being conservative means being more comfortable with the status quo. It seems obvious that of the 120 million people who weren’t motivated to vote, more of those would be latent conservatives. Or at least, it’s very hard to see a progressive majority in there.
Could be true, but it's certainly not "obvious". There are myriad reasons (especially in the USA) why people might not vote that nothing to do with their political opinions (ideology or intensity). I am sure that a significant number of the 120 million non-voters were "not motivated", but not all of them. And of the "not motivated", it is hard to know the real reasons why and what it means. Some of them, for example, would never vote, regardless of who ran or what the platforms were. Maybe some of them would vote for radical progressive if there was one with credible chance of winning. Maybe some of them would vote for a blatantly Mussolini-inspired candidate. Either way, it isn't obvious that motivation was the reason to not vote for all of them and it certainly isn't clear that they are more likely to be "latent conservatives".
Regarding the original point, Pew published some interesting stats on voter preferences:
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/beyond-red-v...
According to this, progressives are a very small slice of the population, and nowhere near a majority even if you include adjacent groups.
Alas, we appear unlikely to find out, since no presidential/senate candidate is going to do anything truly populist with economic policy for fear of pissing off the big donors.
But anyway, I do not consider Trump as having been rendered ineffective, and he certainly isn't buried.
More centrally, there's no obligation of those with the (literal or metaphorical) printing presses to spread the good word Our Favorite Populist of the moment. In the USA, we ceded control of "the press" to the private sector, without any expectation that they would ever act against the interests of their owners. There's no reason why any multi-(m|b)illion corporation is ever going to champion Bernie Sander's policies. On the other hand, Trump's policies (from day one) were just fine for the largest news organization on the planet, precisely because they were never threatening to the status quo.
If people actually want to hear populist policies, they're going to have to pay attention to something other than corporate owned media, regardless of its nominal political orientation.
I'll do it too:
Republicans have won 8 out of the past 14 elections, and won the popular vote as well as the electoral college in six out of eight [1].
Or, looking at it another way, of the past 14 elections, republicans won the popular vote by an average of 7.42%, while democrats only won by 5.28%, which if you took that pointless cherry picked data seriously could convince you that on average republican candidates are significantly more popular than democrats.
The fact is, this country is split fairly evenly along the nonsensical left/right axis.
A more interesting evaluation would be along the authoritarian vs antiauthoritarian axis. I think a much larger percentage of Americans fall along the antiauthoritarian axis, and that the noise in the left/right false dichotomy is a result of that more than anything.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presid...
If they didn't go to absurd lengths to chop up districts and make it harder for poor people to vote, it wouldn't even be a close fight.
Your own link shows that Democrats have won the popular vote 7 out of the last 8.
Here are more complex ones:
"[Party A] is actively censoring speech that they don't agree with, calling it misinformation, even though their 'fact checkers' have shown strong political bias. Do you support this?"
and
"[Party B] wants to restrict your right to your body and self-ownership by limiting access to healthcare like abortion and gender affirming care for adults. Do you support this?"
These are the sorts of political "points" that both parties try to score. There are lots more examples.
What's the common theme?
There's an underlying message of "scary authoritarian government controlling me".
I think that most Americans, regardless of political party, have fairly strong antiauthoritarian leanings. I think both political parties attempt to exploit this in political messaging, but neither actually mean it.
By definition, a political party seeks power.
Of course, no one wants to point out their own power-seeking, so the only option is to point out your opponent's.
The sort of authoritarian instincts I was thinking of involve things more like: incarceration camps for people with national origins in the wrong place, immigration policies denying entry to people from the wrong place, ignoring Constitutional separation between church & state to allow "just a little" theocratic bleed-through (imagine if the "church" in question was a mosque), using the army for law enforcement, outlawing more strikes by "critical workers", seeking to restrain the behavior of corporate persons (previously established as subject to the first amendment by SCOTUS) ... and we could go on. Basically, "fascism light" - nothing too horrible, just round one of Pastor Niemoller's famous anecdote.
There's a reason we don't do popular vote; California and New York would pretty much pick the president every election.
Take a look at the geographic distribution of red v blue by county in the 2020 presidential election [1].
Relying on only the popular vote could devolve the country into a hunger games type dystopian hellscape where 90% of the country is controlled by a few dense urban clusters.
The universe doesn't owe unpopular ideas equal footing. People who don't like what cities think might feel like the odds are stacked against them in a popular contest. They are correct.
We don't give new chess players extra queens, either.
Electoral college was a sop to slavers and should be deleted. It doesn't empower small states, it empowers large states which happen to be swing states.
Founders’ intent is pretty irrelevant to today’s problems. They ran forced labor plantations, hadn’t mastered electricity or germ theory of disease, and the biggest city was ~30K people.
1 person = 1 vote, get rid of all the rural planter rigs.
This is defensible, and I'm sure you would not balk at being called "anti-majoritarian", but lets be clear about what is going on.
Also, post-Civil War, this "we're a republic not a democracy" stuff really changed significantly. While it may have been absolutely true in 1776, it became much less true in the 1800s, and has continued to become even less so in the 1900s. It may have been better if the Constitution had been amended to reflect this (since it was happening anyway), but it's burying your head in the sand to pretend that the original conception is reality on the ground today.
ANYTHING, eh? Please tell me, what did they do? Trump won an election (thanks to the mechanics of the Electoral College), he served as president, he passed laws (some of which the courts overturned, as happens with most presidents), he handed out pardons (some wise, some not), and then he lost an election.
What is this "ANYTHING" that has been done to stop him?
Attempting to take a popular political figure out by blatant abuse of the legal abuse is a bit more concerning.
I assume murder. What else?
The issue here is that people went looking for a crime for almost a decade, singling out Trump in a deranged crusade. Bush levelled entire countries. Obama put the foundations of the global spying apparatus in place. Biden might be on the verge of igniting WWIII with the policies of escalation that the US is employing.
Then in that background, there is speculation that Trump is going to be arrested for something related to Stormy Daniels after the levels of effort put in to pinning something on him. The people who feel that is appropriate can't serious. Based on what we've seen of the Trump saga so far, this is probably abuse of process. If that level of effort was put into another politician, they'd be in jail too.
This is also why it’s important to not use the law as a political tool. Otherwise trust in the law is undermined.
We actually were a signatory (and one of the prime movers for regularizing the ad hoc processes which we had also been a prime mover for creating in Yugoslavia and Rwanda) of the Rome Statute under Clinton, though the signature was effectively withdrawn under Bush.
Not a great look.
I looked into it more and while 7 voted against, 21 abstained so votes don't tell the whole picture. Between China, Indonesia, India and The US you're talking a major chunk of the world population.
Anything China does is "a major chunk of the world population". Same with India.
The US government is not allowed to participate or facilitate a criminal prosecution that would deny a US citizen their constitutional rights there has been a Supreme Court case about this already ironically in 1998 which was also one of the triggers for voting no.
On a side note the ICC is terrible, any party can bring up a case, there is no separation of duties, no defined scope and no right of appeal.
The ICC is nothing more than virtue signaling, and should never been established in its current form the world was just too high on its own supply of late 90’s hopium at that point to care.
Are there potential circumstances where the US Constitution might conflict with obligations under the Rome Statute? Maybe; that certainly fairly regularly happens in practice with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, but the US has signed and ratified that treaty.
They obviously do not. If they did, you could basically abolish the Constitution with one with only the presidency, a bare majority of the Senate, and the cooperation of a foreign power. An actual Constitutional amendment must meet a much, much higher bar.
Treaties have and do grant the Federal government additional powers. They cannot diminish powers or add something that is taken away.
And non self executing treaties are meaningless they pretty much mean that the US government promised something but it is not compelled to do anything about it and there is no mechanism that would require it to comply.
The US constitution is supreme it takes precedence over anything the legislative branch might legislate and any action the executive branch might take.
Alien tort is also not accepted when interpreting the constitution so you literally cannot interpret the constitution from the point of view of international or foreign laws.
Congress does get extra power when a law is passed as a treaty. Issues that are state business under the 10th Amendment become federal business.
But it’s nothing like a constitutional amendment.
Best you could hope for is domestic charges or for Kissinger to make a visit to Viet Nam and get arrested there.
The Hague invasion aspect, and Hague Invasion Act nickname, are perhaps largely symbolic; the less symbolic effects are that it prohibits any part of government in the US from assisting the ICC except in limited circumstances, and bans ICC agents from doing any investigative work in the US.
Doesn't this make the US a safe haven for other countries' war criminals?
You'd think the rule would be that there will be no support for ICC agents investigating US citizens.
Most of its prosecutions would be impossible without US help.
For example, do you really think that by charging putin, that he'd really get arrested in participating countries? Or would the warrant be ignored?
And if putin does lose his war, and goes into exile, the ICC warrants would then be possible to enforce (now that no nukes is on the line). But putin knows this, so if the war goes badly, would it not make better sense to fight it out to the bitter end, rather than lose out to being arrested if he goes on exile?
The court that has no enforcement mechanism is mostly just political show boating.
The Military in Russia is a low-status organisation and it is not capable of doing anyrhing in internal politics. They commonly end up on the recieving end of racketeering by low-level gangs. Yes, people that drive tanks and fire missiles pay 'taxes' to bandits armed with pistols.
Putin was sending generals to their deaths without worry.
Various internal police forces have a higher chance of removing FSB from power than the military does. If thongs get bad enough, thats not impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar_massacre
As he has been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole the US takes the position that they want to prosecute such things within their own system.
However, to engage in a counterfactual: would I expect in the scenario that a different president not eligible for reelection were to generate the same fact pattern as Trump to also be indicted? Or another scenario: a politician who is eligible for reelection to a different lower office?
Yes, in both cases.
In other words, by virtue of Trump's position I think special care and thought was taken to make sure things are on the up and up. I think prosecutors are smart people and generally are aware and thoughtful about the position they are in. I do not think they are pursuing this issue with extra vigor because Trump is Trump.
That doesn't mean he did or did not do something illegal. The difference is Hillary/etc. can't be prosecuted for anything.
How many campaign finance skeletons do you think most of the big politicians have in their closets that will never be investigated much less prosecuted?
I'm trying to keep this comment impartial. But I want to note that right now there is a huge belief that the media and companies and the wider "acceptable" social narrative are biased against a lot of the core beliefs that people on the right align to. I too hold that belief, and I've yet to see sufficient proof to convince me otherwise.
You combine these two wide points, and I'd argue that we should sympathize with those people and not call them "crazy conspiratists" for trying to shed light on this. It's actually a difficult to prove and isolate, second-order type of conclusion.
The danger of this half-assed prosecution to the republic is fucking enormous, I'm actually scared.
The only way we're getting out of the larger situation is for Republicans and independents to realize that Trump is/was just another basic grifter capitalizing on frustration with the system. Just because someone is despised by the people at the country club doesn't mean they're your friend. While we're hungry for reform, this doesn't mean that every type of change is a step in the right direction. And despite the suffocating dynamic, there's actually a damn good reason we've come to expect that politicians should be a bit neutered. Ultimately true conservatism for the American status quo that we've come to take for granted, as much as it pains my past self to write that.
“Jan 6th but an actual insurrection with guns and political/military leaders”
Or
“Southwestern sheriff decides to expel illegal immigrants on his own, requests ‘MAGA patriots’ to come on down and get deputized, atrocities ensue, feds get involved and it spirals into a state vs federal fiasco (which sounds fanfic but Abbott and DeSantis are clearly sympathetic to the idea)”
I honestly think that the second scenario or at least another Malheur Wildlife Refuge/Waco style standoff is only a matter of time - and judging by DoJ’s public priorities, they’re extremely concerned about it as well.
A big part of the rule of law is treating people equally. Given the lead up, this is probably a question of selective persecution.
In countries like Ukraine and Georgia, they have recently jailed their presidents or opponents. Yanukovich jailed Timushenko. Saakashvili was jailed.
This can wreak a lot of havoc in a country. Look at how the supporters of Imran Khan are reacting, as his opponents always try to arrest him:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Imran_Khan_arrest_attem...
Nixon was pardoned, but he also resigned and quit politics.
Political leaders are easy to replace, which means that the bar for replacing them should be low. If a leader is accused with crimes and the charges seem plausible enough, they are expected to resign to avoid a divisive trial. Similarly, unless the charges are particularly serious, the other side is expected to pardon the accused. Then the former leader is expected to quit politics and stop being a problem.
This all happens, because political leaders are supposed to care about national interests. Granting a disgraced leader a dignified exit and a chance for a peaceful retirement is often a good idea, as long as the former leader agrees to remain a former leader. On the other hand, pardoning active politicians is about as bad idea as anything can be. That way you get entitled leaders who consider themselves above the law.
The founders of the United States were criminals and traitors.
"we must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately"
I thought the point of the US was to allow the president to do some sweet real estate deals? From https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de.html
> His stories about George Washington, none of which I knew, are even more fascinating. Bueno de Mesquita claims, quite plausibly, that a huge part of George Washington’s motive for fighting the Revolutionary War was to protect his substantial, and critically placed, landholdings in the Ohio Valley.
Remember that the 'Royal Proclamation of 1763' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 :
> The Proclamation forbade all settlements west of a line drawn along the Appalachian Mountains, which was delineated as an Indian Reserve.[2] Exclusion from the vast region of Trans-Appalachia created discontent between Britain and colonial land speculators and potential settlers. The proclamation and access to western lands was one of the first significant areas of dispute between Britain and the colonies and would become a contributing factor leading to the American Revolution.[3]
> British colonists and land speculators objected to the proclamation boundary since the British government had already assigned land grants to them. Including the wealthy owners of the Ohio company who protested the line to the governor of Virginia, as they had plans for settling the land to grow business.[15] Many settlements already existed beyond the proclamation line,[16] some of which had been temporarily evacuated during Pontiac's War, and there were many already granted land claims yet to be settled. For example, George Washington and his Virginia soldiers had been granted lands past the boundary. Prominent American colonials joined with the land speculators in Britain to lobby the government to move the line further west.
More context from https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/12/bruce_bueno_de.html
> [...] his story made me realize that a large part of my belief in GW is romantic: because I learned about him so early in life, that romantic view is harder to shake and I’ve been less willing to put GW under the public choice microscope than with any current or recent president.
> An excerpt about GW’s wealth:
>> His last position, just before becoming President, was President of the Patowmack Canal Company–the Potomac Canal, as we know it, from the Potomac River. What that canal did was bring, make it possible to bring produce from the Shenandoah Valley–which George owned–up to the port in Alexandria, which had been built by Lawrence, by the Ohio Valley Company, in which George had a direct interest, and shipped goods out. So it was a very profitable undertaking–or so he thought it would be, in the long run, for him. And that’s what motivated him. Most people think of Washington as–besides a great hero, which he certainly was–as kind of a gentleman farmer. Economists have estimated the worth in real dollars adjusted for inflation, not appreciated, of George Washington’s estate, in contemporary terms; and it’s about $20 billion dollars. He is by far the wealthiest President. He is the 59th wealthiest person in American history. Three of the American founding fathers are in the list of the top 100 wealthiest Americans in all of history: Hancock, who was wealthier than Washington–made his money smuggling; and Ben Franklin, who was not quite as wealthy, who made his money because he had a monopoly on the printing press. These are the folks who led the Revolution. These were not the downtrodden. These were not the oppressed. These were people who stood to lose huge amounts of wealth because of the King’s policies. And so they fought a Revolution. Which was, by the way, not very popular. Sixty percent of the colonists either were neutral or opposed to the Revolution.
> Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders.
The Brits already had that system in place, so no need to secede because of that. Yes, the King was above the law, but he was a figurehead and by the time of the colonials' insubordination the country was already run by parliament and Prime Minister.
Honestly, what the US campaign financing system needs is a full overhaul, its full of legal and illegal-but-ignored corruption.
Plenty of governors have been put in prison but an ex-president is going to have secret service, even in prison?
This is a crime another person served time for so it's definitely a crime worthy of prison but of all the crimes, this is so damn stupid in comparison.
I'd settle for CEOs and Bankers going to prison for all the crimes they have gotten away with on a daily basis than even one president as despised as they are.
What I don't love is the timing of it. It makes it easily dismissible as political theatre. Wait until after the election.
If you treat your life as one big show, any accountability will seem like theater, but that doesn't mean you get to avoid it.
He's always sold him self as the ultimate "Rebel", and a half assed prosecution on something so minor to the grand scheme of things solidifies it. Human Nature 101 which seems to be something hackernews engineers don't understand as much as I'd like as a manager of many engineering teams.
I really don't understand how he drives his enemies to make so many basic mistakes, but he does.
Your mistake is thinking a disastrous president that lost re-election somehow understands the modal voter. He doesn’t even understand the modal voter in swing states.
> ... And the district attorney should set out why he finds it necessary that the records be produced now as opposed to when the President leaves office. At argument, respondent’s counsel told us that his office’s concern is the expiration of the statute of limitations,11 but there are potential solutions to that problem. Even if New York law does not automatically suspend the statute of limitations for prosecuting a President until he leaves office,12 it may be possible to eliminate the problem by waiver.13 And if the prosecutor’s statute-of-limitations concerns relate to parties other than the President, he should be required to spell that out.
> ...
> 12: See N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law Ann. §30.10(4)(a) (West 2010) (statute tolled when defendant outside the jurisdiction); see also People v. Knobel, 94 N. Y. 2d 226, 230, 723 N. E. 2d 550, 552 (1999) (explaining New York rule for tolling the limitations period when a defendant is “continuously outside” the State and concluding that “all periods of a day or more that a nonresident defendant is out-of-State should be totaled and toll the Statute of Limitations”).
The legal gymnastics this DA is jumping through to attach charges here makes a joke of the entire justice system. I won’t be surprise if Bragg is disbarred for this.
... because there is a law on the books that says "it's a crime to do this thing" and this person pretty clearly did that thing.
Like, from a political perspective, I'm in the boat of "uggggh, I wish it wasn't this thing that is the first thing he is charged for". But from a legal perspective ... this is a thing you're not allowed to do ... which he did ... so ...
Like, it’s crazy to me that anyone would assert that the charges are baseless or that they’re solid before the charges have even been announced. How do you know they’re baseless?
I agree that the number of charges doesn’t make a point one way or another, about the strength of the charges.
I’m asking how someone can be absolutely certain in their speculation about those charges.
Is the NYT saying the charges are particularly strong, or are they saying the charges are particularly weak? I haven’t seen that from them, but if they are then I have the same questions.
I’m not holding anyone here to a higher level of scrutiny than the NYT. I merely asked where someone’s confidence came from.
The New York Times thinks this is a huge mistake.
But, like, no one has answered the question I asked. How did you become confident that the allegations are baseless without seeing the allegations? That’s crazy to me.
You’re welcome to do it. It’s a free country, after all. I’m just trying to figure out if it’s rational in some way I don’t understand, or just baseless and overstated speculation.
It seems inherently irrational to me to state the strength of the allegations before we’ve seen the allegations (either meritorious or without merit), but I’ve been wrong before.
So far no one has stepped up and offered an answer to that question though.
> The New York Times thinks this is a huge mistake.
“Is it a mistake” is an entirely different question from “are the charges meritorious”?
Personally, I think they should be the same question, but lots of people think he shouldn’t be indicted even if he committed a crime, or that he should be indicted even if he didn’t. I think both are wrong, and the only mistake is giving him special treatment. He should be charged if, and only if, the facts and law demonstrate that he broke the law.
So, for me “is it a mistake” is a question that we can only start to address once the indictment is unsealed (and fully resolve once evidence by both sides is presented).
You seem to be using "special treatment" differently between your sentences. Almost all crimes that get committed do not result in any indictments. Committing to indict if a law was broken is extremely unusual. Observing that a law was broken and then not indicting is the second-most-common case, behind only to failing to observe that a law was broken and then not indicting. Why is the normal case "special treatment" while the very rare case isn't?
- lots of people want to see Trump indicted come hell or high water. That's special treatment.
- lots of people think Trump shouldn't be indicted, even if he committed a crime, because he's a former President. That's special treatment.
- lots of people think Trump shouldn't be indicted, because it would inflame his base. That's special treatment.
Throw all of that out. Let's deal with the facts and the law.
If the prosecutor thinks they have enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a crime, then he should be charged.
If the prosecutor doesn't have the facts, or evidence, or law to support a charge beyond a reasonable doubt, then he shouldn't be charged.
Throw all the politics and "special reasoning" around Trump out. Charge based on the facts, evidence, and law. A declination even if the prosecutor thinks Trump is guilty, but they don't have the evidence to convince a jury isn't special treatment. That's—as you note—a routine declination. But a declination because you're afraid of the political ramifications of an indictment is wrong. Similarly, charging a weak case because you're afraid of the political ramifications of a declination is wrong.
That is not done in other cases. Why is it not "special treatment" to do it to Trump?
> A declination even if the prosecutor thinks Trump is guilty, but they don't have the evidence to convince a jury isn't special treatment. That's—as you note—a routine declination.
That's not what I'm noting. Failing to prosecute is the ordinary case for almost all crimes. It is absolutely routine for nonviolent crimes. So we have a prosecutor that thinks that Donald Trump really is guilty of whatever the charge is, and it's easy to prove it in court.
And the same prosecutor also knows that everyone in the government within three levels of the president really is guilty of very similar crimes, and those would all also be easy to prove in court.
Then he charges Trump and moves on with his life. That's not special treatment?
I think your hypothetical would be partially special treatment, but I don't think your hypothetical is accurate.
The one way in which it _wouldn't_ be special treatment, is I generally think it's most appropriate to charge top-down. That is, let's say at a company you know three people were all involved in the commission of a crime (maybe embezzlement, that's a popular white collar crime): The CEO, a mid-level manager, and a low-level employee. Assuming all three cases are the same difficulty to charge, and each person has approximately equal responsibility for the criminal acts, but you only have the resources to charge a single case, then I'd think the CEO would be the most appropriate person to charge.
But, assuming the prosecutor _had_ the resources to charge everyone, and only chose to single out one person, then I'd agree that is inappropriate special treatment.
> And the same prosecutor also knows that everyone in the government within three levels of the president really is guilty of very similar crimes, and those would all also be easy to prove in court.
I just...don't think this part is true. Especially the part around "would all also be easy to prove in court." I don't think it's particularly likely that the prosecutor thinks that. Especially given that this is a NY state prosecution, so most people within three levels of the President probably wouldn't have a nexus to NY or be subject to NY state laws.
So, I mostly concede that your hypothetical would be special treatment, but your hypothetical doesn't strike me as particularly likely (note, that it's not impossible, and if you convinced me it was accurate, I'd say we should bring the other charges).
Braggs is case is being criticized heavily from the LEFT and the RIGHT. It is unprecedented and to most of the world similar with banana republics and like reeks of a setup.
You got the New York Post, the New York Times, The Rolling Stone, ABC, Fortune, Slate, The Hill, NBC, National Review, Daily Beast, Politico and more saying this is a bad idea. Don't you wonder why people more familiar with politics who are democrats AND republicans than you think that is ?
So you make America look horrible in the face of - your allies in the elite political circles - your allies internationally - your core base
All the while selling Trump on his ultimate brand as the "Rebel", of which he sells T-shirts off.
You cannot ignore the context around all of this, which weakens America significantly in already trying time as countries around the world are dropping the reserve currency USD and also belief in American Ideals.
Your appeal to the authorities of political figures falls on deaf ears for me. I do not give a single flying shit about the political calculus. That’s what makes it a banana republic decision. Nothing about the decision to charge or not charge should be based on politics. So, fuck the Democrats, fuck the Republicans, and fuck Politico. I don’t give a shit about any of their opinions.
Frankly, the appeal to people who know more “about politics” on this topic is anathema to me.
Show me the charges, show me the evidence, and show me the law. Everything else is for the birds.
Like... What? Rule of law is completely not considered, at all, Trump should be above the law because he's just too big of a popular figure. That's simply absurd to read.
It’s funny, Republicans used to often wax in about the sanctity of the rule of law. For some reason, the entrancing powers of Mr. Trump led many to throw that away to stand behind the demagogue.
We should demand better. I live in New York. 2/4 most recent governors left office as part of a deal to avoid prosecution. Prominent legislative leaders were convicted and removed from office.
Regardless of party, there needs to be a standard. Breaking the law and laundering money to buy the silence of a sexual dalliance is a serious crime. Former NY Governor Spitzer was facing federal charges for money transfer violations of his own money to solicit an escort.
Mr Trump seeks to make this a political matter because that distracts from the heart of the matter — his actions. The people who in good faith donated to his campaign wanted to “make America great again”, not pay hush money to porn actresses.
As New York Judge Sol Wachtler said in 1985, “If a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”
Explanation at https://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/criminally-yours-indicting-a...
That's why we have grand juries, to make sure a crime is truly serious before revealing in public the alleged crime.
In all due time, the charge will be public and we will see the evidence ourselves. The news event is that the prosecutors have crossed one of the major hurdles of a typical criminal court case and have convinced a grand jury to proceed.
I’m also generally much more skeptical of state level pre-indictment processes which generally aren’t quite as buttoned down as federal pre-indictment processes (though, that’s a pretty broad generalization).
But, the indictments will come out soon, and the evidence supporting them eventually, so time will certainly tell.
Whatever he told them, along with whatever other evidence was presented, it was sufficient for them to indict.
The Grand Jury indicted Trump, not Alvin Bragg.
I'll be waiting with my popcorn, because one way or another, this is gonna be good.
They got Michael Cohen for this, and Trump was mentioned in his proceedings as “individual one”.
We still don't know the specifics or the extent of Trump's legal issues, as the Grand jury is still ongoing for this case and others.
Perhaps he had some sort of defense. I hear that's how courts work. Along with dealing in findings of fact and law, rather than speculation about whether it's vaguely fair or vaguely unfair.
I'd imagine a billionaire who is also a former President of the United States also has the resources to muster a defense as effective as a non-billionaire former Senator, if there's an effective defense to be made.
I honestly wouldn't put any faith in a jury choosing to indict. As famously once said, you can convince a jury to indict a ham sandwich. I'm waiting to see what the charges actually are and the evidence for them.
(1985 quote)
> In a bid to make prosecutors more accountable for their actions, Chief Judge Sol Wachtler has proposed that the state scrap the grand jury system of bringing criminal indictments.
> Wachtler, who became the state’s top judge earlier this month, said district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that “by and large” they could get them to “indict a ham sandwich.”
If you pronounce it a joke or predict the disbarment of Bragg now, you aren’t doing it based on the merits of the case.
It’s often difficult to disconnect the actual crimes from wanting Justice generally for a person’s net life behaviour… which isn’t how this works IRL nor how it should work. Whether other crimes and social taboos should be better enforced is another matter entirely.
They are targeting the record keeping.
When the story rolled around the first time, people did indeed make the argument that the payment itself was illegal.
The campaign finance laws require expenditures that help your electoral chances to be declared as campaign expenditures.
They also prohibit declaring any expenditures that help you in your personal life.
This leads to the obviously terrible result that while you're campaigning for office, it's illegal to pay for anything that simultaneously helps you electorally ("the voters will never hear about my affair with a stripper!") and in your personal life ("my wife will never hear about my affair with a stripper!"). If you don't declare the campaign expense, you're violating the disclosure laws. If you do declare it, you're embezzling from the campaign.
It’s a very bizarre legal theory, and also I believe entirely untested and hugely problematic as you say.
Edwards used actual campaign donations to payoff his mistress to the tune of $1mm and they brought charges and he was found not guilty by the jury.
Here we have a long-standing “fixer” for Trump doing something he had always done and had a history of doing for Trump, with or without a campaign ongoing.
Calling it a campaign finance violation for a business partner to do the legal things that they always did is absurd on its face, besides the fact that such a law would put every politician everywhere in legal jeopardy, and yet surprisingly this theory seems to only be trotted out against Trump!
> JOHN MILLER: I am told by my sources that this is 34 counts of falsification of business records, which is probably a lot of charges involving each document,, each thing that was submitted as a separate count and a couple of matters.
Trump has a long, long, long history of illegal accounting incidents many of which he's gotten in trouble for in civil court. This is just the first time it's been in criminal court.