Unfortunately for me I’m always wrong and you guys are so unbiased and fair that you always put me right.
Personally I think we are better for having a different viewpoint represented.
Sometimes it is puzzling to me, as it is so clear that he’s a conman and a wrong ‘un, but I’m always open to seeing what his defenders come up with.
I knew a Duke law professor who became a lawyer because of his experience as a juror in a South Carolina case involving a black defendant and an all-white jury. By his reckoning, 9 of the 12 jurors had decided the defendant was guilty before they had heard the charges, and the other two just wanted to get their jury duty over with and were willing to go along with the majority.
1 Like
He should have made a film out of it 
Could have made several films in fact
His comment was it did in fact feel like a Hollywood movie (12 Angry Men) when he tells it, but in the moment it was much grubbier and uglier than a movie ever captures.
1 Like
Criminal defense attorneys a very very misunderstood group of people in the US. The picture we pull up in our mind when we hear the term is of a scumbag enabler of the rich and crooked like Johnnie Cochran or Maurice Levy from the Wire. In reality the vast majority of them do what they do because they are aware the vast majority of defendants are getting a raw deal and need help.
That is why just said earlier that in this forum, everything on the right is wrong, no need for trials and evidence while somewhere else in the universe, a group of right wing forumites will be insisting all right wing is innocent, no need for trials and evidence. Everyone will insist it’s not but while ideologies are different, to me, the end result is the same, the one I believe is always innocent and right.
Or alternatively a lifelong crook has created such a toxic political landscape that allows him to get away with absolutely anything.
4 Likes
Except people aren’t condemning Trump without evidence. They are familiarizing themselves with the evidence and speaking to it. That is in stark contrast to how the defenses of him are being crafted
Again, there is nothing noble or smart about reflexively staking out the middle ground of a conversation without having done any work to understand the respective arguments.
2 Likes
A lot of evidence and information has been provided to condemn Trump. It’s not just a knee-jerk reaction.
Very little substantive evidence of his innocence and good character has come from the other side, just name calling and insults.
1 Like
From the guy who suggested 1 day ago that if these were real crimes it would be the IRS going after him not Alvin Bragg (wrong on multiple counts), and that those issues wouldn’t require court (wrong). It is an argument based on a commitment to the idea that the charges are political not legitimate, and this was about your 5th or 6th different attempt to justify that position. Each of those previous ones were also shown to be based on not understanding the details behind the claims you were making.
Different perspectives are good and I am not trying to police how much knowledge of an issue someone needs to have before entering the conversation, but no one has called you out for not knowing the details of the thing you are opining on more than you have. By christ, calibrate that to your attitude to your contributions and the people telling you when you are wrong.
3 Likes
This thread is literally called the The Trials of Donald J Trump.
1 Like
To all who quoted me, sure of course I know there is a trial going on. I am just pointing out, even without a trial or before a trial where the evidence are presented, that alot of people on here would decide Trump is guilty, and I know I am right but people would argue nope they are always rational when it comes to Trump. Similarly the other end would have alot of people deciding Trump is innocent without the trial and evidence presented.
Everyone thinks they are rational and reasonable when it comes to Trump. But I don’t think so. I know I am correct. Feel free to disagree.
Trump is facing four trials.
-
The Manhattan hush money case : A mountain of paper evidence and witness corroboration point to his guilt.
-
Florida documents case : Likewise
-
Jan 6 Washington case : It’s virtually impossible to argue he didn’t do what everyone watched him do.
-
Georgia election interference case : Tape recorded evidence of him engaging in the activity that he was charged with.
The one thing all these cases have in common is that he isn’t offering a defence for any of them. He’s trying to claim immunity in the federal cases and his strategy in the state cases is to cry ‘political witch hunt’ and hope he can get one juror to agree with him.
It doesn’t take a whole lot of reasoning or rationality to understand what is going on here or the probability of his guilt.
4 Likes
Ok. Appreciate the replies but I am not going to be convinced otherwise just because someone writes a long chain of text. I know it helps some people to justify their stand because they have alot of rationale and reasons and help them feel good and correct. And unlike many, I am actually ok if people don’t agree with me.
So, just out of interest, what do you base your opinions on? Obviously not on evidence or rational arguments, so what then?
2 Likes
I would bet that whether Trump is eventually found guilty or not, there will definitely be protests from either side with claims that there are conspiracies and that the justice system in USA is broken.
Luckily I am far removed from those kind of politics and I am just watching it as entertainment.
You are treating it like an abstract concept and utterly refusing to engage with it being a real life situation with knowable information. Your core take is not that unreasonable - that a completely hypothetical accusation against Trump would see many people reflexively condemn him without hesitation. But you have extrapolated that two absurd positions
- you reject actual real world critiques of real situations because there are people who don’t like him and will criticism him for anything
- because those people who would criticize him for anything exist that uninformed takes on what is actually happening are just as valid as actually informed takes.
3 Likes
What I find amusing is that some of the same people determined to construct a defence for Trump that even his own lawyers are not bothering with in the name of ‘objectivity’ are utterly convinced that City have cheated and should face consequences. Citeh have at least the fig leaf of a defence they have mounted to suggest that there was some kind of error.
2 Likes