Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
This is the question I intend to ask anyone who gloats about the conviction. It's the question media should be asking the politicians unctuously proclaiming, “No one is above the law.”
I had written a long post on the decline of the American legal system since I went to law school 45 years ago. Especially regarding the erosion of the expectation that an accuser identify and substantiate the accusations before requiring the accused to guess and to mount a defense based on that guess. But I decided posting that would not help my wellbeing, nor would it be as helpful to overall discussion as I initially hoped.
So, back to exploring what those celebrating Donald Trump’s conviction think they are celebrating:
“Of what was Donald Trump convicted?”
No one can answer completely. They might get part — falsifying business records.
OK. Concede for now. Recording payments to a lawyer who is doing legal work is the crime of falsifying a business record. Right. Anyway . . .
But only if the falsifying is done with the intent to conceal a conspiracy to commit another crime. What is the other crime?
They won’t be able to say. Because the prosecution did not specify the other crime. The prosecution offered options, but with no substantiation for any of them. The judge did not require the jury to specify what the other crime is on which the jury might base any conviction. The judge didn’t even require that the jury unanimously agree on what the other crime is on which they were basing any conviction.
So there is no way for us to know of what the other crime was. Was the other crime actually a crime?
How can we know if there was a conspiracy to commit the other crime if we don’t even know what the other crime was?
And if we don’t know where the conspiracy is, how can we determine if the defendant had the intent to conceal the conspiracy required for the business records crime?
If people are going to sanctimoniously claim “justice” has been done by convicting Donald Trump, they should be able to explain the “justice” that was done. I hope they will become embarrassed when they realize how unjust this conviction is.
Discussion (65)
No doubt our local rationalizers of such things will show up soon (peacocking their ever convenient legal-political-logical contortionism) to explain it all to us.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
If you can't reduce it to a 3-5 word meme, it will not be understood by anyone who does not already get it.
Polite well-reasoned arguments against a demonstrably failed administration did not get Romney over the finish line. The left then proceeded to steadily kill off both the RINOs and the DNC/Clinton quasi-centrist Democrats while mutating into a new, vicious, openly Stalinist form.
Trump arose by sheer natural selection. Denying the left their prey (productive normals) with the same short, effective emotive speech modes they thought they owned exclusively, Trump is a mortal threat to their species and they are acting accordingly.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The people celebrating what they consider to be Trump's demise do not give a damn what the crime was, so expecting some kind of shame from any of them over their ignorance is a waste of time. It ain't gonna happen.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Soon we'll get interviews of the jurors and we'll learn their thinking.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Perhaps -- and even then, we'll only learn what they'll claim was their thinking.
You're seeing five of 65 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.