Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

You forgot to mention Hunter's laptop, Hillary's emails, or the fact that recent conversation about aliens are secretly designed to distract from Biden's something-or-other.  Haha

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

Whatever you say. By the way, it's spelled "doofus".

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

You stated:  "The theory of a weaponized government is not a fact"

Judge Beryl Howell ruled to REMOVE Trump's Atty/client Privilege.

Judge Beryl Howell has ruled against Donald Trump and his lawyer's motions, not 99% of the time, but 100% of the time.

Every single ruling she has made when overseeing the trials against Donald Trump has gone FOR the corrupt Garland DOJ and against Trump.

Would you like to comment on that you Democrat excuse making, gov't bureaucratic ass kisser?  

Now when you ignore that question, here's another question.

Name another person, especially a President who has had his ATTY/CLIENT privileges revoked in this country.  

Name that person. 

Originally Posted by James Brown

No, I am a tool of justice.   Unlike you, I am watching the proceedings with interest and with no pre-conceived notion of Trump's guilt or innocence.   I've posted many times that he may beat these charges and thus be strengthened.  You on the other hand are blinded by hero-worship and there is nothing anyone can do to fix that!

Originally Posted by James Brown

Ok, but you have to recognize that this is personal opinion.   My previous post was more legally defensible than this one.

I worry that Smith has charged Trump with non-routine, almost "untested" crimes.  Smith is arguably charging Trump with the sort of things that other politicians could have been charged with in the past, but never were.  The government's point of view would be that Trump's behavior has gone way above and beyond what other politicians do or did. 

For example, lots of politicians appear to have illegal possession of classified documents, but only Trump (allegedly) lied about it or actively concealed it, or generally forced the government's hand by digging in instead of cooperating.  While this may be true, I do think that Trump's lawyers will work hard to build some sort of defense around the discretionary prosecution of Trump when others who did similar things with documents (but to a much lesser degree maybe) were never prosecuted. Frankly, I am not sure how this is used in court though, if at all.  The government has to prove real crimes beyond any doubt.  If others committed those same crimes but were not prosecuted, that is not actually a defense.  Matters a ton to the public though.  1/2 of the public I should say.

Regarding the defrauding the US charges recently filed by Smith, lots of politicians (or their people) wildly claim they were cheated out of an election.  Clinton, Gore, definitely Stacy Abrams.   The government will argue that they have good documentary evidence that Trump not only lied, but he knew he was lying.  Could be, but again, I would imagine that Trump's lawyers would be salivating over the perceived selective prosecution.  No idea how that is fashioned into a trial defense.  But Garland does have to withstand the heat.  If the public headwinds get too strong will he proceed?  What if the majority does start to think that these prosecutions are pure political BS.  Given Biden's vulnerability, will Garland stand firm or fold his hand?

I have never been a prosecutor, but I would guess that many less aggressive prosecutors would have chosen not to bring these cases.  Jack Smith is known to be super aggressive.  As Rich likes to note, Smith did get overturned in an extremely high-profile VA bribery case.   Garland chose Smith for a reason, and I personally will not be terribly surprised if it backfires.   A lot depends on how bad the evidence really is for Trump, and how good his lawyers turn out to be.  Jim

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Opinion as well

I personally think this is targeted to create as much election interference as possible. Thus the shotgun approach of throwing everything no matter how trivial, untested, unprecedented etc.... Headlines and hype are the goal with very little if any goal of making it stick.

The primary goal is whatever it takes to get Trump to either drop out or at least not win...... In fact it appears blatantly obvious.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I get it that you and Greg are rude to each other now and then, but Greg ID'd his opinion as an opinion.  It is a defensible opinion too.  (In my opinion).  

The prosecution of Trump appears so far to be legally brought, reasonably supported by the law, in accordance with due process, and all the stuff I've been arguing all day.  But it is clearly a discretionary prosecution and it is stretching the boundaries of what has gone before.  By discretionary prosecution, I mean that it is the result of an investigation and grand jury process controlled by Smith.  Smith is applying seldom used and even archaic laws.  It is not like Trump was witnessed by dozens shooting a man dead in broad daylight and then brought into jail by the cops, where prosecution is not discretionary as a practical matter.

I'd buy the argument that this is all largely Trump's fault.  Still, it is not credible to deny there are politics at play in Garland and Smith's prosecution decisions.  I don't agree with Greg that this is entirely political, but that is a long way from denying that it is at least in part political.

Jim