« First « Previous Comments 108 - 147 of 186 Next » Last » Search these comments
Judge Merchan has scheduled Trump’s sentencing for July 11, just a few days before the Republican National Convention starts. In a sane world, since the crimes were victimless misdemeanor process crimes, and because Trump is a first-time offender with no criminal record, Merchan should give him a fine and maybe probation.
In one overreaching fell swoop, they’ve handed Donald Trump a fully formed, ironclad narrative, a singular theme around which voters can rally and that frames the entire election.
As of yesterday afternoon, Trump’s campaign shattered fundraising records, raising an astonishing $53 million dollars from small donations in just 24 hours following the Manhattan Verdict. Maybe even more meaningfully, a full third of those donations were from new donors who had never previously participated.
Bear with me for a little history lesson. In 1960, Alabama’s democrat officials indited Dr. Martin Luther King on charges of perjury, related to alleged underpayment of his state income taxes in 1956 and 1958. Dr. King’s intial charges were misdemeanor tax evasion. But democrat prosecutors later upgraded the charges to felony perjury — for lying on his tax returns — with a possible prison sentence of two to five years for each count.
Boosting misdemeanor tax evasion — which requires dishonest tax reporting — into a felony required some very creative prosecutorial thinking.
The technical basis for charging Dr. King with felony perjury instead of misdemeanor tax evasion was the Orwellian allegation that he had perjured himself in signing his evasive tax returns. Note that, like with Trump, Dr. King’s alleged unreported Alabama income was related to political donations.
And as with Trump’s prosecution, it was the first time in Alabama history that any defendant was ever charged that way.
Both cases were brought by democrats against their political enemies. Both cases involved charges for victimless process crimes. Both cases involved creative bootstrapping of misdemeanors into felonies. Both cases included unprecedented interpretations of the law, charging prominent political figures with crimes never brought against others. Both cases involved charges deeply intertwined with their political activities and public roles: campaign donations in Dr. King’s case, and “legal expenses” argued rather to be campaign expenses for Trump.
Dr. King’s case might help explain why black Americans resonate with Trump’s conviction. And it might also help explain yesterday’s Daily Mail’s headline, which explains in part what has forced corporate media into its desperate efforts at damage control:
Dr. King’s case might help explain why black Americans resonate with Trump’s conviction. And it might also help explain yesterday’s Daily Mail’s headline, which explains in part what has forced corporate media into its desperate efforts at damage control:
jazz_music
Please read https://patrick.net/post/1381434/2024-06-01-grand-unified-theory-of-recent and tell me where I'm wrong.
jazz_music
Please read https://patrick.net/post/1381434/2024-06-01-grand-unified-theory-of-recent and tell me where I'm wrong.
For whatever the reason, it seems to be in the DNA of most Americans to support the underdog, in particular, if that underdog has been obviously unfairly mistreated
RayAmerica says
For whatever the reason, it seems to be in the DNA of most Americans to support the underdog, in particular, if that underdog has been obviously unfairly mistreated
You should consider the implications that this is not some little known fact.
Dr. King’s case might help explain why black Americans resonate with Trump’s conviction.
Even the notorious RINO and former presidential candidate Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah is denouncing the sham conviction of President Donald Trump.
In a rigged trial orchestrated by New York Democrats in conjunction with the Biden White House, Trump was found guilty of all 34 charges of falsifying business records related to a hush-money payment made to adult porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential election.
Romney, who makes no secret of his disdain for the former president and has tried to sabotage him at every turn, argued that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg should never have let the case go to trial.
“Bragg should have settled the case against Trump, as would have been the normal procedure. But he made a political decision,” Romney reportedly told his biographer McKay Coppins, a writer at the Atlantic.
“Bragg may have won the battle, for now, but he may have lost the political war,” he continued. “Democrats think they can put out the Trump fire with oxygen. It’s political malpractice.”
If I did an exhaustive takedown of that little essay
Even the notorious RINO and former presidential candidate Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah is denouncing the sham conviction of President Donald Trump.
« First « Previous Comments 108 - 147 of 186 Next » Last » Search these comments
EDIT: GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS