All Things Trump: the story continues...

[JimC]

This whole thing is a perfect example of a deep flaw in the US legal system. By having elected legal officials such as prosecutors, it allows Trump and his supporters to make a reasonable (on the surface) claim that a Democrat prosecutor is waging a partisan political attack. (I'm not saying that's what it is, just that it could easily be described so...)

Most civilised democracies have a much more robust separation between the partisan political and the legal - any legal action against a political figure in Australia (for example) would be seen by the vast majority as an independent process, to succeed or fail on its own merits...

[Svartalf]

I see the flaw as lying in the fact that electing officials in the police and judicial systems gives specialist powers to people whose popularity cannot guarantee actual competence... the same is true for all offices, but I'd certain;y not like a system in which the head of state was designated without popular input

[macdoc]

Head of State is is not elected as such in a parliamentary system, he is the head of the party in power and runs the government.

Canada system of government is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. His Majesty King Charles III is King of Canada and Head of State. The Governor General is the representative of The King in Canada.

Australia's Head of State is the King of Australia, His Majesty King Charles III.

In France tho Macro is the elected Head of State. Biden in the US.

Electing legal positions like judges and sheriffs is a horrid system especially with parties running elections in each state and no independent national electoral commission...recipe for a swamp.

[rasetsu]

It's always an arms race between the development of processes to insure fairness and the evolution of methods of exploiting said processes' loopholes. There is no perfect system.

[Tero]

This whole thing is a perfect example of a deep flaw in the US legal system. By having elected legal officials such as prosecutors, it allows Trump and his supporters to make a reasonable (on the surface) claim that a Democrat prosecutor is waging a partisan political attack. (I'm not saying that's what it is, just that it could easily be described so...)

Most civilised democracies have a much more robust separation between the partisan political and the legal - any legal action against a political figure in Australia (for example) would be seen by the vast majority as an independent process, to succeed or fail on its own merits...

The flaw is mostly the money. There is no limit on spending in elections. Also, since money is already flowing into elections, some will end up in the pockets of politicians. Corporations are people too!

[Svartalf]

well, some corporations ought to be dissolved in nitric acid

[Tero]

Melania will have nothing to so with Stormy related case.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 0.html?amp

[Brian Peacock]

It's important to hold politicians to account, but isn't this just giving him the kind of publicity he's always thrived on - 'them' against 'us'?

[Tero]

Trump had tha party after. It was all the people that will go down with him. The rest of GOP are plannkng post-Trump careers. And funding.

[JimC]

It's important to hold politicians to account, but isn't this just giving him the kind of publicity he's always thrived on - 'them' against 'us'?

And the fact that those who decide to prosecute him (not just this one, but the possible other cases) are from the Democrats totally reinforces the "us vs them" dynamic. A deeply flawed system.

[Tero]

Not quite sure how Iowa republicans compare to Florida republicans, but Florida is BIG
DeSantis tops Trump in new Florida poll of GOP front-runners
https://www.local10.com/news/florida/20 ... t-runners/

[Tero]

[Tero]

These legal cases coming in for about a year have one useful benefit, Trump is talking about Trump. There is nothing of substance in his speeches.

He might get a short-term boost, sure. The criminal case New York prosecutors finally unveiled against former President Donald Trump is underwhelming, and Trump might even win. The charges fuel Trump’s refrain that he’s a victim of political persecution, for those who want to align themselves with a self-described victim.

As a political force, however, Trump is withering. His mounting troubles probably mean he can’t win a general election under normal circumstances, and the candidates he has endorsed during the last two years generally have a losing record. There’s also worse to come for Trump, which he acknowledges himself. His arraignment on criminal charges in New York City on April 4 may actually be the high point for Trump in the 2024 election cycle. If he’s the Republican presidential nominee in 2024, Democrats will win.

Stay ahead of the market
The Trump speech in Florida on April 4, after he returned home from being arraigned in New York, reveals everything wrong with Trump’s 2024 presidential candidacy and his woeful political future. What’s very notable is what Trump didn’t say. While defending himself and making the case for his 2024 candidacy, Trump didn’t propose any new actions or policies to improve the country, whether it’s tackling inflation, countering China or winning in Ukraine. Trump always claims things would be better if he were in charge, and makes overwrought claims about the peace and prosperity he delivered as president. But he doesn’t have a vision for the future that involves anybody other than himself.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-is ... 31136.html

[Brian Peacock]

It's important to hold politicians to account, but isn't this just giving him the kind of publicity he's always thrived on - 'them' against 'us'?

And the fact that those who decide to prosecute him (not just this one, but the possible other cases) are from the Democrats totally reinforces the "us vs them" dynamic. A deeply flawed system.

But in an independent judicial system that's instituted for the protection and benefit of society at large the 'us' is all of us, and the 'them' is the alleged wrongdoer. Are we to consider it unfair to seek a conviction when someone is alleged to have mugged a granny, even as they proclaim their innocence and that the court, judge and jury dislike them and are all against them(?) If they're convicted of the crime, the very fact of that conviction could vindicate their claim that they've been unduly picked on by a system stacked against them. This is Trump's tactic. Even if he's found guilty he will tout it as a vindication of his claims about a political witch hunt - regardless of what the evidence and prosecution arguments suggest to the court.

By the same token we should also acknowledge that often so-called independent judicial systems have been, can be, and are fundamentally unfair - sentencing certain demographics to harsher or longer carceral regimes than others for the same crime, shifting the burden to some demographics of victims over other demographics of alleged perpetrators, sometimes convicting on the basis of a low evidential burden for some and higher evidential burden for others.

[Brian Peacock]

These legal cases coming in for about a year have one useful benefit, Trump is talking about Trump. There is nothing of substance in his speeches.

Not that he cares. What is important is not the content of what he says, but the fact that he's sucking all the other news out of the headlines and broadcasts. It's the run up to 2016 all over again.