Former Trump Adviser John Bolton Criminally Indicted

[NxNW]

78 million Americans knows that those felonies were nothing more than lawfare.

Or they think the law doesn't apply to Trump.

 

[Servus]

It's funny how they keep saying the law didn't apply to Trump and he was above the law when none of that is true. He was indicted, convicted and sentenced, just like they wanted.

 

[A2SG]

It's funny how they keep saying the law didn't apply to Trump and he was above the law when none of that is true. He was indicted, convicted and sentenced, just like they wanted.

Sure, but the point is that he wasn't treated the same as any other criminal convicted of 34 felonies. He got preferential treatment. He was sentenced with no punishment whatsoever: no fine, no jail time, nothing. Not even your average white collar criminal gets that kind of special consideration.

And that's aside from the fact that a number of people considered these felony fraud convictions to be no problem when voting for the leader of the country. Clearly, quite a few voters feel Trump definitely is, and should be, above the law. At least, in terms of how he's treated even after his guilt has been established and proven. Even to this day, there are many who continue to cry lawfare, claiming he was falsely convicted, despite a complete and utter lack of any evidence to support that conclusion.

Which is why it rings hollow when those very same people say things like "no one is above the law."

-- A2SG, wish they'd be honest and specify, "no one else is above the law...."

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's funny how they keep saying the law didn't apply to Trump and he was above the law when none of that is true. He was indicted, convicted and sentenced, just like they wanted.

The stronger cases were stymied by a combo of legal delay tactics, an absurdly sympathetic judge, and questions of whether states could prosecute a sitting president.

 

[DaisyDay]

The US Attorney for that district was definitely a Trump somebody.

It is utterly irrelevant to indictment who the assigned judge in the case is. Judges are only assigned *AFTER* there is an indictment.

A lot of career, professional attorneys signed the indictment, so this isn't in the same league as the Comey and James prosecutions: there may be a "there" here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A lot of career, professional attorneys signed the indictment, so this isn't in the same league as the Comey and James prosecutions: there may be a "there" here.

Even back in the "investigative stages" this case has seemed more serious than the others on Trump's enemies list.

 

[JSRG]

And that's aside from the fact that a number of people considered these felony fraud convictions to be no problem when voting for the leader of the country. Clearly, quite a few voters feel Trump definitely is, and should be, above the law. At least, in terms of how he's treated even after his guilt has been established and proven. Even to this day, there are many who continue to cry lawfare, claiming he was falsely convicted, despite a complete and utter lack of any evidence to support that conclusion.

Complete and utter lack of any evidence? People unfriendly to Trump have pointed out to various problems with it, including the left-wing Vox (which, while saying some of the conservative/Republican attacks on the conviction are excessive, acknowledges there are some legitimate things to take issue with).

I didn't vote for Trump, but I still think Bragg's prosecution against him appears highly questionable and fairly blatant lawfare. Given that, I'm not going to blame anyone for not finding those convictions a reason to not evote for him. The excesses of that case probably made a good number of people take the much more credible-looking Jack Smith prosecutions less seriously.

 

[NxNW]

Complete and utter lack of any evidence? People unfriendly to Trump have pointed out to various problems with it, including the left-wing Vox.

Is there evidence, or not?

 

[JSRG]

Is there evidence, or not?

Well, if you had read the article I linked to, you would have seen some.

To be fair, it's behind a paywall (it wasn't in the past, which is a bit annoying). Unfortunately, various good explanations of the problems with it are behind paywalls (e.g. this one). Still, if someone wants articles that are free to read, there's this article from Reason and this one from USA Today.

 

[DaisyDay]

I didn't vote for Trump, but I still think Bragg's prosecution against him appears highly questionable and fairly blatant lawfare. Given that, I'm not going to blame anyone for not finding those convictions a reason to not evote for him. The excesses of that case probably made a good number of people take the much more credible-looking Jack Smith prosecutions less seriously.

I don't know why you'd think that as the investigation sprang out of the prosecution of Michael Cohen for doing Trump's bidding. The former DJ, Cyrus Vance, had the case ready to go by the time Bragg got the office. Even so, Bragg put it off for such a long while that the two prosecutors who developed the case quit in protest over Bragg's inaction. The case was pretty solid.

 

[A2SG]

Complete and utter lack of any evidence? People unfriendly to Trump have pointed out to various problems with it, including the left-wing Vox (which, while saying some of the conservative/Republican attacks on the conviction are excessive, acknowledges there are some legitimate things to take issue with).

I didn't vote for Trump, but I still think Bragg's prosecution against him appears highly questionable and fairly blatant lawfare. Given that, I'm not going to blame anyone for not finding those convictions a reason to not evote for him. The excesses of that case probably made a good number of people take the much more credible-looking Jack Smith prosecutions less seriously.

Yes, some do see problems with Trump's criminal fraud trial, but the fact remains: the jury found him guilty, and the judge did not vacate their decision. So it stands. If an appeals court in the future sees these legal issues as being significant enough to overturn the verdict, that, and only that, will indicate to me that these problems actually make a difference. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have anywhere near the experience or knowledge of NY financial law to make a determination myself.

As to the lack of evidence, I stand by that. Legal theories and arguments are all well and good, but no one has yet been able to prove, with evidence, any actual misconduct or malfeasance in the case. And any claims of bias on the part of the judge are weakened by the sentence he imposed: an unconditional discharge. No punishment, no jail time, nothing. Not exactly the actions of someone out to get him.

I'll leave legal arguments to the appeals court, as I'm not qualified to evaluate them, but arguments are not evidence. And anyone claiming "lawfare" with this, or with James' civil case against Trump, has yet to provide any actual evidence of misconduct or malfeasance.

-- A2SG, and both guilty verdicts continue to stand....