The Atlantic: "If Trump Is Guilty, Does It Matter If the Prosecution Was Political?"

[markpkessinger]

Superb essay by David A. Graham in response to Republican complaints that the New York prosecution of Trump was "politically motivated." Graham writes:

They have a point, but it’s not the condemnation they believe. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is an elected prosecutor who ran as a Democrat in a heavily Democratic city. Trump also received more scrutiny from prosecutors after he became a political figure than he’d ever experienced before. But none of this has any bearing on whether Trump actually committed the crimes with which he was charged.

The bar for convicting any defendant in the American justice system is extremely high: It requires a unanimous decision by 12 citizens who deem a crime to have occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. A prosecutor may well have political motivation, but his motivation isn’t what determines a verdict; he must prove his charges in court, through an adversarial process. Despite the yelps that Trump was tried in a kangaroo court, his lawyers had every opportunity to challenge jurors, introduce evidence, question prosecution witnesses, and call their own.

After his lawyers had done that, jurors swiftly found that Trump had falsified 34 business records. The questions that these Republicans ought to answer, as the journalist David S. Bernstein writes, are: Do you believe this should be legal? And if not, which of these acts do you believe Trump didn’t commit? Because what none of Trump’s would-be vindicators is willing to argue is that he didn’t try to hide a payment to Stormy Daniels to prevent her from talking about their sexual encounter. The more important question is not what motivated the charges, but whether they were justified and proved to a jury’s satisfaction.

[ . . . . ]

Republican cries of political prosecution can also be understood in another, better way. Because Trump’s defenders are unwilling to argue that he didn’t falsify the records or that it shouldn’t be a crime, they’re actually arguing that he should get a pass on crimes they view as minor because he’s a political figure. The American justice system has never held that someone should be immune from repercussions for their behavior simply because they’re a politician. Now Trump and his allies are making versions of this extremely swampy argument, both at the Supreme Court and in the court of public opinion.

“If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone,” Trump said at a press conference this morning. Indeed, that’s the point of equal justice under the law.

Full essay at: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/05/trump-manhattan-guilty-verdict-political-prosecution/678564/

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Whining about selective or political prosecution is no excuse

Anyone with a traffic ticket has felt the same. Cut all the privilege for Trump and treat him like the rest of us.

[sop]

2. "Does It Matter If the Prosecution Was Political?"

Sorry, conceding Trump's prosecution was political, even if only for the sake of argument, is a nonstarter.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

3. TCF views this trial and his conviction as POLITICAL.

But not weaponized by the DOJ.

This was a state case, not a Federal one. The evidence against him was well documented and witnesses were upfront about what went down in 2016. No one is above the law.

[unblock]

4. Sorta. But missing a key point. It's more about building a rationale for Donnie to prosecute political opponents.

Yes, they are arguing that he should be able to get away with it. Not because he's any generic politician, but because he's a big name Republican. They do not for one minute think any democrat should be able to get away with anything. They wanted to lock Hillary up for something that didn't amount even a single indictment.

But the argument it was "political" give him a rationale, should he manage to weasel his way back into the Oval Office, to do exactly what he's accusing "democrats" of doing -- going after political opponents purely because they're political opponents.

Given the chance, he will give a whole new meaning to the term "trumped-up charges". He will prosecute Biden, Hillary, pelosi, Schumer, whoever the next Democratic candidate is, etc.

Hell, he might just declare the entire Democratic Party illegal. Dictators do that kind of crap. Hitler did. Donnie will, if we let him.

[B.See]

5. He most certainly will. Re the "political" argument, let us not forget that POLITICS was at the heart of TRUMP'S CRIME

That is, he paid off a porn star to hide a sexual tryst, then cooked the books to hide the payoff, just so he could barely slip into the O. Office via Electoral Vote,

and subsequently SUBJECT AMERICA to his hate filled divisive politics, his personal grift from the office, his sabotaging and undermining of government agencies, his big tax payoff to his wealthy elite cronies,

and the approximately 300 THOUSAND unnecessary deaths from Covid due to this bstrd's outright lies, denials, and obstruction of medical information and safe practices.

Imagine how much BETTER America would've been without this PESTILENT's odiously DESTRUCTIVE MALIGNANCY, and that of his devotees.

[markpkessinger]

8. TCF?

Sorry, I'm not good with acronyms. What do you mean by TCF?

[unblock]

9. wrong post, but i suspect they meant the criminal f*ck

[GreenWave]

6. If Trump must con people, does it matter if the trial was fair?

[iluvtennis]

7. TFG skated accountability during his term in office (2017-2021) as his AGs protected him from

being prosecuted.

[Ms. Toad]

10. Nope.

You omitted the "point" in your quote:

“This was a purely political exercise, not a legal one,” said Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. . . . They have a point . . ."

Emphasis added.

No. They don't. Anyone who begins an article accepting - as a valid point - that this was purely political, not a legal, exercise - doesn't deserve the time and attention it takes to read the article.

[republianmushroom]

11. And is Hunter's "prosecution" political ?