Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2024, 07:13 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: 10) These felony charges and trial wouldn’t have happened at all had it not been for the defendant’s name and/or status as a presidential candidate in 2024.

Just one I’ve seen a lot of, not sure if there’s proof one way or another outside of just seeming obvious.

So, I would say that the charges likely would not have been brought had it not been Trump. However, it has nothing to do with his status as a candidate. The timeline of events for this case began in 2018 with Michael Cohen's guilty plea. When that occurred, the prior Manhattan DA, Vance, started investigating Trump and the organization. The investigation was paused as the SDNY opened an investigation and closed it in 2019 without charges. Vance picked it back up and issued subpoenas in 2019. Trump attempted to claim immunity from them until SCOTUS finally voted 7-2 that he was not immune from them and he had to comply.

Bragg started his campaign for the role in 2019, IIRC. The information subpoenaed was received by the DA's office not too long before he took the helm and charges had been filed by Vance against Weisselberg and the Trump organization. The investigation was still ongoing into Trump himself, however, and Bragg was reticent towards it. This is one of the reasons Pomerantz ended up leaving. There are a lot of sources out there for this information, including the Wikipedia post on the prosecution of Trump. Personally, I like this article from CNN where there was an interview with Bragg upon taking office that shows that while he was intent on continuing what Vance had started, it wasn't his primary focus. Which brings me to my next point for this thread. 

11. "Alvin Bragg campaigned on throwing Trump in jail." - Bragg made comments while campaigning that he was the right person to pick up the inquiry from Vance because he had brought litigation against Trump in the past. He stated that he had a history of holding people in power accountable and that he would do the same here “by following the facts where they go.” Obviously, the investigations opened by Vance in 2018 were going to loom large in the race, so they had to be discussed, but Bragg's comments were more about being the right person to pick up that ball from Vance, not that he was determined to indict/prosecute Trump. (Source)

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

I am just glad it is peacefully going through the appeals process. Different legal analysts have brought different points of appeal.

Not going to argue the points, as I am no legal scholar, but hope in ends in a way where it does not further divide the country.


I am curious if there would have been any rioting, parades, property damage if he was found innocent on all counts instead of guilty? Whether by those who disagreed with the decision, or those celebrating it.

[Luvnit2]

(06-05-2024, 07:31 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I am just glad it is peacefully going through the appeals process. Different legal analysts have brought different points of appeal.

Not going to argue the points, as I am no legal scholar, but hope in ends in a way where it does not further divide the country.


I am curious if there would have been any rioting, parades, property damage if he was found innocent on all counts instead of guilty? Whether by those who disagreed with the decision, or those celebrating it.

Just one more case of propaganda by the left. 

The right is on a mission, be peaceful (unlike Antifa and rioters on college campuses as well as George Floyd protesters) and vote Biden out of office on November 5, 2024.

I will say it again, liberals can't have it both ways by claiming Bragg and a Biden donating judge was fair and then attack any decision made by the SC as being unfair and based on politics. Either trust the entire legal process or not.
Same people in here and on TV praising Trump case being fair went after the SC for overruling Roe Vs. Wade, not saying women can't get an abortion, but states decide rules, not the federal government.

[StoneTheCrow]

(06-05-2024, 07:07 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I would say that the charges likely would not have been brought had it not been Trump. However, it has nothing to do with his status as a candidate. The timeline of events for this case began in 2018 with Michael Cohen's guilty plea. When that occurred, the prior Manhattan DA, Vance, started investigating Trump and the organization. The investigation was paused as the SDNY opened an investigation and closed it in 2019 without charges. Vance picked it back up and issued subpoenas in 2019. Trump attempted to claim immunity from them until SCOTUS finally voted 7-2 that he was not immune from them and he had to comply.

Bragg started his campaign for the role in 2019, IIRC. The information subpoenaed was received by the DA's office not too long before he took the helm and charges had been filed by Vance against Weisselberg and the Trump organization. The investigation was still ongoing into Trump himself, however, and Bragg was reticent towards it. This is one of the reasons Pomerantz ended up leaving. There are a lot of sources out there for this information, including the Wikipedia post on the prosecution of Trump. Personally, I like this article from CNN where there was an interview with Bragg upon taking office that shows that while he was intent on continuing what Vance had started, it wasn't his primary focus. Which brings me to my next point for this thread. 

11. "Alvin Bragg campaigned on throwing Trump in jail." - Bragg made comments while campaigning that he was the right person to pick up the inquiry from Vance because he had brought litigation against Trump in the past. He stated that he had a history of holding people in power accountable and that he would do the same here “by following the facts where they go.” Obviously, the investigations opened by Vance in 2018 were going to loom large in the race, so they had to be discussed, but Bragg's comments were more about being the right person to pick up that ball from Vance, not that he was determined to indict/prosecute Trump. (Source)

Informative as always, I appreciate the reply.

[Arturo Bandini]

Judges are campaining too ?

Not everything is a show ...

[Belsnickel]

(06-05-2024, 10:30 AM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Informative as always, I appreciate the reply.

I'm really trying to bring facts to the conversation. There is just a lot of inflammatory rhetoric being used by the media and some posters that ignores some of this. Even some of the legal analysts being relied on are ignoring some of these things; and they should know better. I also freely admit that I followed this case far more closely than most. There is a reason I could pull the transcripts for my sources, I have been going through them the whole time. I am a nerd for this kind of stuff, so I consume a lot of legal-focused media as well. So my knowledge of all of this and my understanding of it is going to be more than most.

It was funny, though, I was listening to a more politics-forward podcast and I had to stop listening. Rick Wilson was just giving some terrible takes about the trial and I was reminded by if I listen to politics podcasts, they have to be more tongue-in-cheek.

[Belsnickel]

(06-05-2024, 10:59 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Judges are campaining too ?

Not everything is a show ...

All judges campaign. Here in the US, some are elected so they campaign to the public. When judges are appointed, they just campaign to those that do the appointing and confirming.

If you are referring to Bragg, though, he is not the judge. He is the District Attorney, or prosecutor.

[StoneTheCrow]

(06-05-2024, 11:11 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm really trying to bring facts to the conversation. There is just a lot of inflammatory rhetoric being used by the media and some posters that ignores some of this. Even some of the legal analysts being relied on are ignoring some of these things; and they should know better. I also freely admit that I followed this case far more closely than most. There is a reason I could pull the transcripts for my sources, I have been going through them the whole time. I am a nerd for this kind of stuff, so I consume a lot of legal-focused media as well. So my knowledge of all of this and my understanding of it is going to be more than most.

It was funny, though, I was listening to a more politics-forward podcast and I had to stop listening. Rick Wilson was just giving some terrible takes about the trial and I was reminded by if I listen to politics podcasts, they have to be more tongue-in-cheek.

Rick Wilson, terrible takes?? I don’t believe it for a second

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-05-2024, 10:26 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Just one more case of propaganda by the left. 

The right is on a mission, be peaceful (unlike Antifa and rioters on college campuses as well as George Floyd protesters) and vote Biden out of office on November 5, 2024.

I will say it again, liberals can't have it both ways by claiming Bragg and a Biden donating judge was fair and then attack any decision made by the SC as being unfair and based on politics. Either trust the entire legal process or not.
Same people in here and on TV praising Trump case being fair went after the SC for overruling Roe Vs. Wade, not saying women can't get an abortion, but states decide rules, not the federal government.

I was not trying to imply they would be violent, just that sometimes idiots do stupid stuff when things do not go their way, on the right and left.

I agree that is is hard to believe they are all about law and order when Joe Biden openly brags about defying SCOTUS with regard to student loan forgiveness.

[Dill]

(06-05-2024, 02:39 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I was not trying to imply they would be violent, just that sometimes idiots do stupid stuff when things do not go their way, on the right and left.

I agree that is is hard to believe they are all about law and order when Joe Biden openly brags about defying SCOTUS with regard to student loan forgiveness.

I think the claim is they are all about rule of law. That's what Joe brags about.

[Dill]

(06-05-2024, 10:26 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Just one more case of propaganda by the left. 

The right is on a mission, be peaceful (unlike Antifa and rioters on college campuses as well as George Floyd protesters) and vote Biden out of office on November 5, 2024.

I will say it again, liberals can't have it both ways by claiming Bragg and a Biden donating judge was fair and then attack any decision made by the SC as being unfair and based on politics. Either trust the entire legal process or not.
Same people in here and on TV praising Trump case being fair went after the SC for overruling Roe Vs. Wade, not saying women can't get an abortion, but states decide rules, not the federal government.

The Right's ex-president does not seem to be on board with that mission, does he? 

He's done quite bit to target the judge and his staff, the prosecutors, and jurors. 

And his MAGA followers have obliged with a blitzkrieg of threats to personal safety. 

As far as corrupt judges though, I think a $35 donation is a long ways from $500 million plus in gifts, coupled with refusals
to recuse on cases affecting one's benefactors. Allowing MAGA flags to fly from one's home is also more disturbing. 

And "trust the entire legal process or not" is a false either/or.  Adopting that view would fuel corruption. 

The goal should always be to examine laws and evidence in a case first. Consider politics when 
the outcomes diverge from the law and evidence evidence warrant.  E.g., when Supreme Court candidates swear they
consider Roe "settled law" and then overturn it as soon as they can, exactly as they were selected to do. 

[StoneTheCrow]

(06-05-2024, 07:24 PM)Dill Wrote: I think the claim is they are all about rule of law. That's what Joe brags about.

Just Joe huh? You two knickerbockin’ crookbacks ole drinking pals or something, Jack?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2024, 07:39 PM)Dill Wrote: The Right's ex-president does not seem to be on board with that mission, does he? 

He's done quite bit to target the judge and his staff, the prosecutors, and jurors. 

And his MAGA followers have obliged with a blitzkrieg of threats to personal safety. 

As far as corrupt judges though, I think a $35 donation is a long ways from $500 million plus in gifts, coupled with refusals
to recuse on cases affecting one's benefactors. Allowing MAGA flags to fly from one's home is also more disturbing. 

And "trust the entire legal process or not" is a false either/or.  Adopting that view would fuel corruption. 

The goal should always be to examine laws and evidence in a case first. Consider politics when 
the outcomes diverge from the law and evidence evidence warrant.  E.g., when Supreme Court candidates swear they
consider Roe "settled law" and then overturn it as soon as they can, exactly as they were selected to do. 

Using the left's own standards the 01/06 riot was more "mostly peaceful" than many, if not most BLM riots. 

[Dill]

(06-05-2024, 08:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Using the left's own standards the 01/06 riot was more "mostly peaceful" than many, if not most BLM riots. 

"The left" is a pretty expansive, flexible term, as you and Luvnit use it, creating amorphous actors claimed to say one one thing here 
and another there to produce "hypocrisy " and "cognitive dissonance" attributable to everyone collected in that giant bag. 

And you've ignored a request for definition.  So who knows whom you mean here  by "the left" or what by "the left's own standards." 

I don't feel like taking much of my valuable time to address what became the Right's #1 WHATTABOUT after 1/6, again. After all,
you are just free-associating this connection from Luvnit's claim THE RIGHT IS ON A MISSION TO BE PEACEFUL, easily refutable
by the Dear Leader's own behavior.  But I'll at least say this:

All the "leftists" I know, including actual leftists, don't think "mostly peaceful" is a decisive term of comparison
between protests against a a police murder, the vast majority with no violence at all, and an attempt to overturn
a valid election in the very seat of the US government.  

As if "violence" were the central issue and hypocritical "leftists" were ignoring that more windows were broken in Portland. 

As if spontaneous protests against police injustice eventually organized by people out of office were equivalent to an illegal attempt to overthrow democracy organized from the highest office in the land, in terms of the implications for the integrity of the US political system, especially rule of law.

That central "leftist standard" just disappears in Right wing apologies for 1/6, if it was ever visible at all.

[Dill]

(06-04-2024, 08:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, we are all aware by now that Trump has been found guilty by a jury of his peers on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, a Class E felony under NY penal code 175.10. Of course, certain segments of the media have been perpetuating false claims about all of this and I have seen a lot of it repeated in this forum, so I wanted to do a little "clearing the air," so to speak. folks who may just be getting bad information it would be good to have this as a place for rational discussion about the trial.

Just want to say, this is the best and most informative project I've seen on the Bengals Message board, going back two decades. I also like that it extends beyond one post, a true work-in-progress.  Lots of careful research evident here. And a great model for serious discussion going forward.

I'm interested in seeing how well "cleaning the air" works, whether and how it affects discussion of the Trump trial in this forum. 

Seriously, well done. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2024, 09:51 PM)Dill Wrote: "The left" is a pretty expansive, flexible term, as you and Luvnit use it, creating amorphous actors claimed to say one one thing here 
and another there to produce "hypocrisy " and "cognitive dissonance" attributable to everyone collected in that giant bag.

You're transparent attempts to equate me to partisan extremists, is as pathetic as it is futile.  No one but your little cabal is buying it.

Quote:I don't feel like taking much of my valuable time to address what became the Right's #1 WHATTABOUT after 1/6, again. After all,
you are just free-associating this connection from Luvnit's claim THE RIGHT IS ON A MISSION TO BE PEACEFUL, easily refutable
by the Dear Leader's own behavior.  But I'll at least say this:

Based on your overly verbose responses to pretty much everything we can all determine you find this to be a valuable use of your time.

Quote:All the "leftists" I know, including actual leftists, don't think "mostly peaceful" is a decisive term of comparison
between protests against a a police murder, the vast majority with no violence at all, and an attempt to overturn
a valid election in the very seat of the US government.  

Trust me, no one is surprised to hear you claim this.

Quote:As if "violence" were the central issue and hypocritical "leftists" were ignoring that more windows were broken in Portland. 

Yes, just "windows".  Not occupied buildings being set on fire.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/crime/man-sentenced-5-years-arson-portland-police-north-precinct/283-ea1cea0f-d86c-4ebe-b3bc-6b57e1f4909c

Quote:As if spontaneous protests against police injustice eventually organized by people out of office were equivalent to an illegal attempt to overthrow democracy 
organized from the highest office in the land, in terms of the implications for the integrity of the US political system, especially rule by law.

"Spontaneous"?!  You precious far left court jester you.  You're adorable!!!

Quote:That central "leftist standard" just disappears in Right wing apologies for 1/6, if it was ever visible at all.

Both are bad.  At least the more centrist/right leaning posters here can acknowledge this.

Still laughing about "spontaneous" btw.  You partisan shill. 

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-05-2024, 07:24 PM)Dill Wrote: I think the claim is they are all about rule of law. That's what Joe brags about.

That, defying SCOTUS, and being able to polish off three ice creams in one sitting...

[Dill]

(06-05-2024, 10:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The left" is a pretty expansive, flexible term, as you and Luvnit use it, creating amorphous actors claimed to say one one thing here 
and another there to produce "hypocrisy " and "cognitive dissonance" attributable to everyone collected in that giant bag.

You're transparent attempts to equate me to partisan extremists, is as pathetic as it is futile.  No one but your little cabal is buying it.

So you are not using the term "leftist" as "partisan extremists" do? And you are still not going to define the term?

So you DON'T regularly jump into threads accusing "leftists" of "partisan hypocrisy," while defending Trump policies and SCOTUS choices
and deploying prominent far right whattabouts like "BLM was worse"--always presuming others' agreement while denouncing the "leftist hive mind"? 

No one has ever seen you do that but my "cabal"? 

The lite insults in lieu of substance also call into question your definitions of "partisan" and "verbose."

(06-05-2024, 10:48 PM)opathicsteelerfan Wrote: Based on your overly verbose responses to pretty much everything we can all determine you find this to be a valuable use of your time.

All the "leftists" I know, including actual leftists, don't think "mostly peaceful" is a decisive term of comparison

between protests against a a police murder, the vast majority with no violence at all, and an attempt to overturn
a valid election in the very seat of the US government.

Trust me, no one is surprised to hear you claim this.

Dodging arguments with insults shouldn't earn anyone's trust. 

And whether people are surprised that I explained this point, is beside the point.
That you are unable to address the argument, much less refute it, is not.

(06-05-2024, 10:48 PM)opathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, just "windows".  Not occupied buildings being set on fire
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/crime/man-sentenced-5-years-arson-portland-police-north-precinct/283-ea1cea0f-d86c-4ebe-b3bc-6b57e1f4909c
"Spontaneous"?!  You precious far left court jester you.  You're adorable!!!
Both are bad.  At least the more centrist/right leaning posters here can acknowledge this.
Still laughing about "spontaneous" btw.  You partisan shill. 

"Windows" is a figural reference to any sort of property damage. 
You won't refute my point with a link proving that a gas station was burned down too. 

There isn't anyone in this forum who doesn't acknowledge that "both are bad." You are addressing a non-problem.

"Centrist" posters can agree that property damage and "violence" alone are not what set the Capitol riot, instigated by a sitting president
to overturn an election, apart from the 6% percent of George Floyd protests that turned violent, a protest which went worldwide
given the broad appeal of its ethical ground. 

So equation of Capitol/BLM riots on the basis of property damage is not some "leftist standard"; 
it is a "rightist" standard you project onto your giant, amorphous and undefined "left" before denouncing
the "hypocrisy" you just manufactured. It's part and parcel with current disinformation about the Trump trial.
Same sources, same associative logic, proceeding as if there's some double standard too obvious to explain. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2024, 03:10 PM)Dill Wrote: "Windows" is a figural reference to any sort of property damage. 
You won't refute my point with a link proving that a gas station was burned down too.

By "gas station" you mean occupied police precinct right?

Quote: 
There isn't anyone in this forum who doesn't acknowledge that "both are bad." You are addressing a non-problem.

Incorrect.

Quote:"Centrist" posters can agree that property damage and "violence" alone are not what set the Capitol riot, instigated by a sitting president
to overturn an election, apart from the 6% percent of George Floyd protests that turned violent, a protest which went worldwide
given the broad appeal of its ethical ground. 

Source for your 6% claim please.

Quote:So equation of Capitol/BLM riots on the basis of property damage is not some "leftist standard"; 
it is a "rightist" standard you project onto your giant, amorphous and undefined "left" before denouncing
the "hypocrisy" you just manufactured. It's part and parcel with current disinformation about the Trump trial.
Same sources, same associative logic, proceeding as if there's some double standard too obvious to explain. 

One person died at the Capitol riot, an unarmed (which usually sends your type into a tizzy) participant.  many more people died at BLM riots.  Thousands were assaulted.  Thousands of assaults could never be charged because we couldn't ID the person who threw the brick that broke my friend's jaw.  You don't want to acknowledge just how shitty many of the people at these protests/riots were because you'd have to face the moral bankruptcy of your ideological fellows.

[Dill]

(06-06-2024, 05:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There isn't anyone in this forum who doesn't acknowledge that "both are bad." You are addressing a non-problem.

Incorrect.

Source for your "incorrect" claim, please. Referencing someone's "entire posting history" won't do. Cite name, thread and post.

(06-06-2024, 05:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Source for your 6% claim please.

This source says only 6% of the +1,000 protests involved arrests, including non-violent protestors. 96.7% involved no property damage. So probably less than 6% involved violence. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2021/0708/BLM-and-Floyd-protests-were-largely-peaceful-data-confirms

This source says 93% involved no violence. That would make 7% not peaceful. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/us/blm-protests-peaceful-report-trnd/index.html

(06-06-2024, 05:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You don't want to acknowledge just how shitty many of the people at these protests/riots were because you'd have to face the moral bankruptcy of your ideological fellows.

Deflection, but I'm fine with acknowledging that people who committed violence at those riots were "shitty." That includes ANTIFA and various right wing groups who see every riot as an opportunity. 

Shitty also is any attempt to conflate all protestors with them. I was happy to be one of those "morally bankrupt" protestors in my town who called for basic justice and recognition of common humanity, regardless of race. 15-25 million Americans were moved to protest Floyd's murder, not to mention more millions in other countries.

(06-06-2024, 05:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One person died at the Capitol riot, an unarmed (which usually sends your type into a tizzy) participant.  many more people died at BLM riots.  Thousands were assaulted.  Thousands of assaults could never be charged because we couldn't ID the person who threw the brick that broke my friend's jaw. 

You are still measuring broken windows, figuratively speaking, adapting the previous Capitol/BLM false equivalence to the current round of Trump-inspired violence, which your "ideological fellow" would obscure with claims like the right is on a "mission to be peaceful." Maybe a new figure will help.

In terms of the body politic, comparing the Floyd riots to the Capitol riots by # of people killed is rather like claiming a broken arm was more dangerous than a stroke because more tissue was destroyed. Making tissue the measure wholly misses the scale of threat to the total organism.

"The left's own standards" center on the fact that the Capitol riot originated in, and was led from, the highest office in the land--a direct threat to democracy from and to the executive center of our political system. So many essential differences here: Biden did not call all the protesters together and give them a target, then call the violent protestors "patriots" and consider pardoning those who received prison sentences, thus affirming his continuing connection to them and legitimation of lawless behavior. 

And the threat to democracy is still there, as the disinformation machine which set the capitol riot in motion is still running full throttle. Bels' thread here is an attempt to address one aspect of that machine in the most careful and systematic terms. It will be interesting to see how that works out. The false equivalences will continue to come, to normalize and legitimate an anti-democratic politics.