Republicans Defending Joe Biden

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

68 Responses

  1. North
    Ignored
    says:

    I applaud your analysis and principle, well done.Report

  2. Brandon Berg
    Ignored
    says:

    You’re giving Biden way too much credit on inflation. The ARP was a huge dose of stimulus to an economy that didn’t need it, and this was mildly but totally unnecessarily aggravated by Biden repeatedly extending the student loan payment pause long past the point where there was any even remotely plausible justification for doing so. Inflation started taking off almost immediately after the ARP checks went out.

    Yes, many other countries had inflation, but many other countries also overspent during COVID, and Europe was hit harder by the war in Ukraine. Japan had 2.5% inflation in 2022, and Switzerland 2.8%, compared to the US’s 8%.

    No, Biden and the Democrats were not solely responsible for high inflation. There were a number of other factors, including supply-side factors, the Fed waiting too long to raise rates in 2021, and also people going out to spend excess pandemic savings after getting vaccinated (but we knew this, which strengthens the argument that the ARP was an unforced error). But Biden’s mismanagement was a significant contributor, likely adding 2-3 points to peak inflation.

    Yes, the Trump administration spent more in 2020 than the Biden Administration spent in 2021, but you should know better than to fall for such a transparently disingenuous talking point. 2020 was a very different situation that called for a very different response. As there were no COVID vaccines at the time, there was a (somewhat) bipartisan consensus that a planned partial shutdown of the economy was called for, during which unemployment spiked to nearly 15%, and a large burst in spending was needed to support people affected. IMO there should have been less spending, but a Democrat with a trifecta definitely would have spent as much or more.

    By March of 2021, unemployment was down to 6.1% and rapidly falling, vaccines were rolling out, and, as noted above, there was already a tremendous amount of latent stimulus embedded in excess savings from 2020. There was no economic justification for an additional stimulus round, or for extension of the student loan payment pause or expanded unemployment benefits past, say, June of 2022 (when vaccine uptake went from supply-constrained to demand-constrained), and these were all economic blunders (and/or cynically political ploys) that contributed to excessive inflation.

    Also worth noting that continued excess spending has forced the Fed to raise rates more than they would have otherwise, and that approximately 100% of the persistent inflation (i.e. the fact that prices are still 10-15% above the pre-COVID trend, and will remain there) is attributable to excess fiscal and monetary stimulus. Inflation attributable to supply-side factors goes away when the supply problems are resolved.

    This is not to say that Trump was not also a terrible President, but I’m not going to argue with anyone who has nothing nicer to say about Biden than that he has not been a significantly worse President than Trump.Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to Brandon Berg
      Ignored
      says:

      Biden has attempted to be much worse on economic policy than he has actually been able to be, but has been held back by Congressional Republicans and the most moderate Democrats.Report

      • KenB in reply to Brandon Berg
        Ignored
        says:

        This to me is the more effective approach to actually move someone who thinks that both candidates are horrible — rather than making tenuous arguments about who’s the least worst, talk about the likely population of Congress and which one is likely to be held more in check based on the expected balance of power.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to KenB
          Ignored
          says:

          One candidate promises to destroy democracy and the rule of law, the other has poor economic policies.

          Decisions, decisions.Report

          • KenB in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            Omigod, a partisan Democratic is positive the Democrat is the better choice! That sure convinces me!Report

            • Philip H in reply to KenB
              Ignored
              says:

              Good to know you remain in the destroy democracy camp.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                “We’re the Democrats! Anyone who votes against us is anti-Democracy! IT’S IN THE NAME!!!!”Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You really need to get out of your bubble man. Because here in the real world, one party is STILL claiming the last Presidential election was STOLEN from them despite the evidence. And they are ACTING On those claims legislatively at the state and federal level. That actually is a danger to democracy, and while you might be insulated from the initial fallout in purple Colorado, you actually should be concerned about this.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I understand why they believe that the election was stolen (even if I think that they are wrong about it).

                If the election *WAS* stolen… democracy *WAS* subverted.

                You know that Georgia is trying to pass a law saying that all mail-in ballots *MUST* be counted by 8PM on election night, right?

                Do you know why that is? I know why that is.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                The election wasn’t stolen. That you continue to argue from the counterfactual actually smears you the Big Lie.

                They believe the election was stolen because someone won it they oppose. And for a number of years they had been lied to that any outcome other then their person winning could ONLY happen because of illegal and immoral actions – namely theft. They chose to believe the lie because it comforted them emotionally.

                And so they pass silly laws that will hamstring voters and force the USPS to be the bad guy (because the USPS can’t actually deliver 100% of anything on time), all because they are afraid of loosing political and economic power.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                See, that’s not what I said. I didn’t say that the election was stolen.

                I do understand why they believe that the election was stolen, though.

                That’s not the same thing.

                They believe the election was stolen because someone won it they oppose.

                If that’s how you see it, it must be infuriating.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Nice try sir, but I don’t deflect that easily.

                If the election *WAS* stolen… democracy *WAS* subverted.

                The election wasn’t stolen. That you continue to argue from the counterfactual actually smears you the Big Lie.

                They believe the election was stolen because someone won it they oppose.

                If that’s how you see it, it must be infuriating.

                They believe the election was stolen because someone won it they oppose. And for a number of years they had been lied to that any outcome other then their person winning could ONLY happen because of illegal and immoral actions – namely theft. They chose to believe the lie because it comforted them emotionally.

                Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, you can’t even see how someone else would see things differently.

                Seeing them believe something that you can’t comprehend must really piss you off.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Phillip, like the rest of us, has a very good grasp of how and why the Trumpists refuse to accept the reality of a free and fair election that they lost.

                Like, we all have a very good understanding of how and why masses of people cling to delusional beliefs. There are entire sections in the library documenting this phenomenon.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Eh, I’m in “show me, don’t tell me” space right now.

                But thank you for telling me.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                If I’m not mistaken, Chip, you used to be a Reaganite, probably grew up among such folks. I grew up among people who are now Trumpists. As a matter of life experience, we have plenty of data on which to base an understanding of why such people see things the way they see them. Your understanding and my understanding of why may differ from their self-understanding of why, but that merely raises a question of who’s right, not some general inability to understand.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                This is all true and Trumpists especially are not some mysterious and enigmatic group; They are maybe the most overstudied and overindulged group in America today. We know exactly who they are and how they think and what they believe.

                My original comment:
                “One candidate promises to destroy democracy and the rule of law, the other has poor economic policies” is no longer an opinion upon which reasonable people can disagree.
                It is just a plain English black letter recounting of what the Trumpists themselves are saying.

                Likewise, Phillip’s comment “They believe the election was stolen because someone won it they oppose” is also not something that people “can see differently” any more than “some people believe the earth is flat and reasonable people can see it that way.”

                As someone once said, “Facts are stubborn things”.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Not as stubborn as assertions, sadly.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Did you know that the theory of evolution is just a theory?

                Big, if true.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Arguing against Lamarckianism does not a Creationist make.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip: Did you know that the theory of evolution is just a theory?

                So is the theory of gravity.

                The James Webb telescope has found a lot of data which is a massive F.U. to existing theories.

                We seem to have galaxies that are older than the big bang.Report

              • KenB in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                It was a mistake for me to have responded to Chip — I should’ve thought ahead about the likely consequences.Report

              • Philip H in reply to KenB
                Ignored
                says:

                Really? You’d rather not engage then have to clarify or defend your position? Fascinating.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to KenB
              Ignored
              says:

              I voted for Trump last time and he attempted to overthrow democracy.

              If Trump is elected he needs to dismantle rule of law because if he doesn’t he’ll go to prison.

              We’re in “dictator” and “traitor” territory. Right there I need to vote against him if Team Blue has anything even slightly sane.

              Joe has had issues, but he’s no where close to Trump and he’s not with the lunatic Left. I haven’t paid a lot of attention but my impression is he’s fine by Blue standards and that’s their big issue with him.Report

              • KenB in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s fine…I just think maybe y’all didn’t really read my comment, which was about persuasion strategy and not my personal opinion on Trump.Report

              • Philip H in reply to KenB
                Ignored
                says:

                Maybe – like Jaybird – you ought to reread your own stuff and use your theory of mind to see if that’s what you actually wrote. Because if Dark and I can come to the same conclusion about something, perhaps a mark was missed.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s what he actually wrote. It was one sentence. It made a narrow point about the election without denouncing Trump. You and Dark Matter both react emotionally to any sentence about Trump that doesn’t denounce him.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Correct – because my experience shows me that conservatives refusing to denounce him are either living in underpants gnome territory, or are willing to tolerate him because he won’t hurt them. That aside, the election is down to Trump and Biden. So if you are writing derogatorily about Biden then you have included Trump.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Can you think of any potential downsides to responding with emotion rather than reason?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                His point was that we aren’t convincing him.

                We get it. We aren’t trying to convince him. We are trying to convince normal people of the threat posed by Trump.

                And honestly, our best ammunition is just clips and transcriptions of Trump’s comments and actions.
                He just says straight up that he wants to be dictator. No fancy arguments are needed.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s not an emotional reaction. My cold, logical opinion is that Trump should be in prison as a traitor to the country.

                I don’t say that lightly. I think Blue/Red constantly claiming [current President] is a [whatever] is a misuse of language.

                But we have the problem of what to call a President who refused to step down and attempted a violent insurrection to stay in power.

                I refused to vote for Trump in ’16 for calm reasons. Then I voted for him in ’20 for calm reasons. Now I think he should be in prison for breaking serious laws and can’t be trusted to be in office.

                He could have accepted defeat gracefully and then successfully ran in 2024 but we are where we are.

                You attempt to overthrow Democracy just once and you’ll never hear the end of it.Report

              • InMD in reply to KenB
                Ignored
                says:

                I think it’s fair to discuss this without turning it into the larger issues around Trump. As I said in my below comment the Biden admin overshot, and while I guess reasonable people can differ as to whether overshooting is worse than undershooting, if you care about inflation, Trump is by far the worse candidate. To the extent he has stated any plans it is a combination of (i) 10% tariff on all imported goods, (ii) (apparently?) unfunded tax cuts and (iii) possible threats to independence of the fed. All right when things are starting to slowly get back under control under existing policy.Report

              • North in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah what few policies Trump has proposed would make Erdoğan blush.Report

              • InMD in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                Pretty much. I mean on one hand the best kept secret in politics is what Trump would actually attempt to do from a policy perspective if put back in office. But it isn’t like that which has been shared indicates some sort of mastery of technocratic government.Report

      • InMD in reply to Brandon Berg
        Ignored
        says:

        That’s a pretty questionable conclusion in context of the last 15 or so years of history and the political situation of the moment. The administration was clearly motivated to avoid what we had coming out of the great recession (i.e. a lost decade of sluggish growth and higher unemployment) and overshot the mark. Whether that happened because the admin set a low (or high really) anchor for the American Rescue Plan in anticipation of having to negotiate it back, or they really thought the numbers were correct, is anyone’s guess.

        Either way it’s important to remember that when the plan was crafted everyone thought the Democrats were about to lose the Senate, but then unexpectedly didn’t due to Trump backed candidates losing winnable races. The result was the plan being passed much closer to original ante.

        We will probably never know the truth of what happened behind the scenes. But the argument that there was no case for additional stimulation seems pretty well countered by the US’s performance versus the rest of the developed world. The worst you can say is that the administration fell short of perfect, but still managed a (nearly unheard of after the shock we had) soft landing, has us at full employment, and outperforming the rest of the rich world. All things considered that’s pretty good coming out of a once in a 100 years pandemic.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Brandon Berg
      Ignored
      says:

      Square this

      approximately 100% of the persistent inflation (i.e. the fact that prices are still 10-15% above the pre-COVID trend, and will remain there) is attributable to excess fiscal and monetary stimulus

      With this

      The report’s authors scoured corporate earnings calls and found executives bragging to shareholders about keeping prices high and widening profit margins as input costs come down.

      https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/19/us-inflation-caused-by-corporate-profitsReport

      • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        Corporations aren’t big enough to create inflation. They’re all slaves to the market.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter
          Ignored
          says:

          They can certainly sustain it though . . .Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
            Ignored
            says:

            This is like claiming fish sustain water.

            Oil is one of the big sources of inflation.
            Oil companies don’t set the price of oil.

            Companies report inflation, they don’t create it.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter
              Ignored
              says:

              Oil is one of the big sources of inflation.
              Oil companies don’t set the price of oil.

              Oh really? So if Texaco, and BP and Chevron and the lot stopped drilling and decided not to pay OPEC’s set price, the price would come down? Really? That’s funny right there.

              And to be clear – you are repudiating the deeply reported data that corporations continuing to profit gouge prices has nothing to do with sustaining inflation? Interesting.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Philip: So if Texaco, and BP and Chevron and the lot stopped drilling and decided not to pay OPEC’s set price…

                Three Fortune 50 companies collectively commit suicide… why?

                The only way that happens is if the gov makes them, so we’re back to the gov.

                Philip: deeply reported data that corporations…

                This is about the dozenth time I’ve heard politicians claim corporations are setting the market rather than being slaves to the market.

                In all of the previous investigations, we found nothing and it was politicians blame shifting.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t consider reporters at the WSJ or Fortune or Business Week politicians but whatever.Report

  3. Andrew Donaldson
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m a simple person I reckon.

    From dog catcher to president, whatever office I’m voting on, I go with the person I think is most capable and qualified to fill the position. If there is no one on my ballot that is capable for the position, I do not.Report

  4. Dark Matter
    Ignored
    says:

    The below link details the various efforts to keep Trump in power.

    We are well past “corrupt politician” territory. He attempted to overturn an election. His efforts failed, not because he wasn’t serious, but because various institutionalists refused to go along with that. Pence, the Justice Department, and most of the hundreds of GOP officials he talked to didn’t cooperate.

    Putting someone like that back in power is nuts.

    He has learned he needs to select people for personal loyalty ahead of time. So Pence won’t be VP and the Justice Department will be purged. He’s even talked about the upcoming purges if he’s elected.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_electionReport

  5. Koz
    Ignored
    says:

    Trump is too dangerous to return to power. That is THE issue of the 2024 election.

    The fcuk it is.

    I suspect I agree with David Thornton on a lot of issues of substance. But unfortunately this piece, and much or most of what he writes here, is embarrassingly small-minded and tedious.

    And oblivious. The world is a different place than it was on Jan 6, or even last year at this time. Since then, we’ve had the terror attacks on Oct 7, the substantive failure of the various legal cases against Trump, the persistence of inflation and the obvious continued deterioration of President Biden’s energy and mental capacity. And in this world, it’s getting more and more difficult to say that America’s biggest priority ought to be keeping former President Trump out of power.

    The David Frum/Jennifer Rubin/David Thornton/Chip Daniels theory is becoming less and less relevant every day, and frankly out of the four of them only Frum really even tries to argue a case for it, as opposed to the other three who just put down sill platitudes and banalities as if nobody could actually argue anything else.

    No, this is a real election coming up and we’ll have a real choice. If lib wants to win it, they’ll have to find a way out the sterile confines they have put themselves in. And they if they don’t want to win it, well I guess that works for me too.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Koz
      Ignored
      says:

      “we’ll have a real choice”

      True. The thing that’s killing me is, I think it’s the choice we deserve.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Koz
      Ignored
      says:

      Koz: the substantive failure of the various legal cases against Trump

      Trump has been successful at delaying some of them past the election. The inexperienced Trump appointed Judge has been a problem in the documents case.

      Where the system is somewhat “failing” is he’s saying things that would get normal people arrested. By the normal rules you’re not allowed to attack witnesses and the like.

      However there is a good chance Trump will be found guilty in some or all of them.

      Some of his lawyers are apparently breathtakingly bad. Even the ones that aren’t have the serious problem that Trump is apparently insisting they make political arguments.Report

      • Koz in reply to Dark Matter
        Ignored
        says:

        Trump has been successful at delaying some of them past the election. The inexperienced Trump appointed Judge has been a problem in the documents case.

        No no. There’s that too, but I’m talking about something different. I’m talking about Donald Trump either straight out winning on the merits, like the 14th Amendment case. Or, losing legally but demonstrating his substantial innocence, or the corruptness of his adversaries or both. That’s what happened in the Jean Carroll civil case, the Tish James civil case, the Georgia case, and maybe the Alvin Bragg case as well.

        Over the last year or three, we’ve all heard a lot from the media and the pundit class talking a big game about how bad Trump is and how much legal trouble he’s in. And things are looking a lot different now that they have to put some cards on the table.

        With Trump’s situation as it stands today, it’s weak to say that he can’t or shouldn’t be President because of his legal problems. And without that, the case against Trump is much weaker than the libs thought, or think.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Koz
          Ignored
          says:

          In nearly every case you outline, there is no jury verdict yet, nor a judges ruling that vindicates TFG. E. Jean Carrol has now won two multi-million dollar judgments against him in civil matters, and the NY AG has won a several hundred million dollar judgement against him. He has successfully used both verdicts to bloviate and fundraise, but he has in no way “won” anything form those cases. His current NYC case presents a LOT of evidence that he managed to do things that were in the very least illegal, never mind immoral. And when the federal courts – slow as they are – begin hearing his criminal cases I don’t think it will go well for him either.

          That aside, as recently as two weeks ago he was openly asking oil company executives for a bribe – specifically $1Billion for his campaign and in exchange he will erase regulation of the oil industry. That alone disqualifies him from the Presidency.Report

          • Damon in reply to Philip H
            Ignored
            says:

            “That alone disqualifies him from the Presidency.”

            Is that your opinion or does that statement have some basis in black letter law?

            And how is that materially different from what politicians do all the time?Report

            • CJColucci in reply to Damon
              Ignored
              says:

              “They all do it” is a lazy lie.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Damon
              Ignored
              says:

              Bob Menendez starts a federal trial today as a sitting Senator for receiving bribes. Call me nuts, but the idea of TFG receiving a billion dollars for his campaign on a promise to roll back oil industry regulations is at least as bad if not worse. I’d also remind you that after years of having the full force and resources of the U.S. Congress, the GOP has found . . . checks notes . . . zero criminally referable actions by the current president that would be equivalent.

              But sure, lets BSDI so we don’t have to worry about accountability or ethics. I mean, both sides HAVE to be bad right?Report

              • Damon in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                So let’s break this down a tad:

                Trump:
                https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/09/climate/trump-oil-gas-mar-a-lago.html

                This is the first paragraph:
                “Former President Donald J. Trump told a group of oil executives and lobbyists gathered at a dinner at his Mar-a-Lago resort last month that they should donate $1 billion to his presidential campaign because, if elected, he would roll back environmental rules that he said hampered their industry, according to two people who were there.”

                Farther down, we get some more details:
                “Mr. Trump did not request money in exchange for killing Mr. Biden’s climate regulations, the two people in the room maintained. Rather, the former president told executives that he was determined to squash what he considered anti-business policies, and that the oil industry should therefore want him to win and should raise $1 billion to ensure his success.”

                That’s not exactly an overt bribe solicitation. But you hate the guy, so sure, why not. The last thing I want to see is this idiot back in the presidency, but sheesh….

                Based upon CBS news, Menendez did a hell of a lot more then what you’re alleging Trump did.

                https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bob-menendez-trial-new-jersey-senator-corruption-case/

                I’m not seeing how these are the same thing, nor am I seeing how your original statement is definitively true.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
            Ignored
            says:

            I lump that last into “fiscally compromised”.

            He desperately needs money to keep his empire alive and is openly asking for “help”. Realistically we should expect a nation state to try to step in because he needs “that” much “help”.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter
              Ignored
              says:

              The oil folks can easily do that. What with the continued ongoing massive profits they are raking in.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Exxon gave $394,114 this cycle and they have $6 million budgeted for lobbying.

                Spending millions, much less hundreds of millions, wouldn’t be legal.

                Trump needs someone who can burn hundreds of millions of dollars and doesn’t care about breaking the law.

                That’s nation state territory, and most of them wouldn’t do it. Basically it’s Saudi Arabia, China, and Russia.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                He asked oil company executives for $1Billion in exchange for regulatory relief. If they chose to they could collectively meet this. Quid Pro quo.Report

  6. Dark Matter
    Ignored
    says:

    Koz: Trump straight out winning on the merits, like the 14th Amendment case.

    That seems unlikely. Trump winning on the merits means a President could just order his political rivals Trump killed. We might have the Supremes establish some sort of test, but the results of that test will still put him seriously over the line.

    [Trump] demonstrating his substantial innocence

    In all four of them his actions aren’t seriously disputed (although his lawyers are making unserious disputes). Nor is it disputed that those actions are illegal.

    or the corruptness of his adversaries

    The argument here is that someone else wouldn’t be charged.

    This is obviously untrue for both of his attempts to overturn the election (State and Federal), and the efforts to keep seriously classified documents.

    For business fraud (i.e. Stormy) I’d say there’s a case to be made (and I’ve made it here) but I’ve been following that one and their case looks a lot more convincing when we drill down into it.

    The various civil cases he’s already lost. He owes crazy amounts of money, it’s not clear he can pay, and his appeals don’t seem to have merit so he will eventually need to pay.

    With Trump’s situation as it stands today, it’s weak to say that he can’t or shouldn’t be President because of his legal problems.

    I don’t understand this conclusion.

    Fiscally he’s compromised from the lawsuits he’s already lost and needs to take money from unclear sources just to keep his business alive (this has already happened).

    For the two federal cases he needs to take office to order to stop the justice department from trying him (thus the planned purge at Justice that he’s talked about). The documents case has been delayed past the election. Depending on when the Supremes rule, the election interference case might go quick enough to require him to pardon himself.

    For the two state cases he may end up in prison, or awaiting to go to prison, while he’s potentially in office.

    Any of those 5 are enough to say he shouldn’t be in office.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-indictments-details-guide-charges-trial-dates-people-case/Report

    • Koz in reply to Dark Matter
      Ignored
      says:

      In all four of them his actions aren’t seriously disputed (although his lawyers are making unserious disputes). Nor is it disputed that those actions are illegal.

      Not on your life. The facts are completely disputed in the Jean Carroll case. In fact, in that case there is basically no evidence against him, except assertions from a woman with a huge motive to lie and a history of making unsubstantiated accusations of sexual misconduct against her.

      The Alvin Bragg case and the DC Jack Smith case (and the Georgia case) it’s not at all clear that his actions were illegal, and the Alvin Bragg case in particular is absolutely obscene either way. He’s nominally guilty of the fraud accusations in the Tish James case, which ought to be a 50 dollar fine, if that.

      The argument here is that someone else wouldn’t be charged.

      Yes, but it goes well beyond that as well, to the point where it would equally disgraceful if anybody else were charged under the circumstances where Trump has been.

      Frankly, a big turning point for me was the statement from Kathy Hochul, the Democratic governor of New York, reassuring the financial community that other people will not be charged in the same circumstances as Trump was in the Tish James case.Report

  7. Dark Matter
    Ignored
    says:

    Koz: The facts are completely disputed in the Jean Carroll case. In fact, in that case there is basically no evidence against him

    He’s already lost all of the cases involving her. The big witness for her was Trump himself.

    She claimed he’d been defaming her after she made a rape accusation. Jury agreed and awarded her single digit millions.

    At that point it should have been clear publicly attacking her was illegal and he should stop. Except he didn’t stop, he continued to do what he’d been found guilty of doing, he just did it more.

    So she sued him again for the same thing. Won again. To get him to stop the award got two more zeros put on it so he now owes $600 million or so.

    He’s appealing, but his idiot lawyer didn’t create grounds for appeal during the court case. To be fair she’s a Florida Real Estate lawyer and had zero experience in what she was doing, i.e. NY civil.

    At this point it’s a legal fact that he defamed her. Trump claiming otherwise in public doesn’t matter to the courts.

    Koz: reassuring the financial community that other people will not be charged in the same circumstances as Trump was in the Tish James case.

    James is dealing with Trump’s defamation case. I think you’re confusing that with his business records case which is really Presidential Election Interference. This is at least the second case being brought for this sort of thing, I think the first one was against Edwards.

    Normally this sort of business records fraud isn’t that serious. What makes it serious if it was done for a larger crime. It’s very hard to see the rest of the financial community interfering in Presidential elections but if they did then I’m reasonably sure they’d get charged no matter what the Mayor has said.Report

    • Koz in reply to Dark Matter
      Ignored
      says:

      She claimed he’d been defaming her after she made a rape accusation. Jury agreed and awarded her single digit millions.

      That’s right. But that’s because the jury (and judge) were the corrupt instruments of a literal rotten borough who were empowered by some attainder-ish moves in the NY state legislature to piss on Trump in spite of the evident facts of the situation.

      At this point it’s a legal fact that he defamed her. Trump claiming otherwise in public doesn’t matter to the courts.

      That’s right, it doesn’t matter to the courts, but it matters to us, or least it ought to. There was basically no case against Trump. Trump raped Carroll because she said so, the case was in no meaningful way any deeper or stronger than that. In fact, it’s actually quite a bit weaker, given what we know of Jean Carroll’s financial motives, and more importantly, her propensity to assert other unsubstantiated claims of sexual misconduct against her by other men. And in fact, it’s even weaker than that, given that the nature of Carroll’s accusations against Trump are inherently very implausible on its own terms.

      Trump is being unfairly railroaded, like for real. I know it’s hard to separate that from his continuous bluster and bullshyt. But still, he is.

      James is dealing with Trump’s defamation case. I think you’re confusing that with his business records case which is really Presidential Election Interference. This is at least the second case being brought for this sort of thing, I think the first one was against Edwards.

      No, I think you’re the one being confused here.

      Counting the Edwards thing you just mentioned, there are three cases: the “Carroll case”, as I have called it, is a purely private civil lawsuit instigated by Jean Carroll accusing Donald Trump of rape and defamation.

      The “Tish James case”, is a sorta rare public civil case by New York State against Trump accusing him of fraud, specifically misrepresenting the square-footage and valuation of some of his real estate holdings way back in the day.

      The “Bragg case” is what we’re in the middle of now. That is a criminal case by New York city prosecutors against Trump accusing him of maintaining or creating false business records relating to his payoffs to Stormy Daniels. That’s is where the Edwards things come in. It is an absolute legal abomination, among other reasons because it presumes that the financial structure of the payoffs were an in-kind donation to his Presidential campaign, which is basically the same thing as what the DOJ tried and failed to convict Sen Edwards of. But frankly, this case is ridiculous for many many reasons well beyond that.

      The $400 million. $600 million figure is from the Tish James case. I suspect Trump will end up having that award eliminated or substantially reduced.

      The $90 million he owes in the Jean Carroll case is equally disgraceful as a legal matter, but I suspect Trump is stuck with that one.

      In any event, the big picture is your understanding of theses case is incomplete in some very important ways. I suspect that if you follow them more closely, you might change your mind about them. I know I did.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *