Mar-a-lago Bebop

[5hout]

Paywalled/ TLDR: Essentially the article says that lawfare in the political space simply further polarizes an already severely and dangerously polarised electorate.

Unless if I am missing something, the Manhattan DA should drop this. Yes, Trump technically broke the law. Something about misuse of campaign finance funds. Let's ignore the low level aspect of it and that it isn't worth going through the trial that will most likely make Trump politically more powerful. The idea is we should treat the President or ex-President the same under the law as everyone else. These types of campaign finance laws are broken all the time at all levels. Remove the salacious details and Trump, charges would not be brought.

We agree on a P. Trump issue. Pretty good sign the DA is off his rocker here.

[dw]

I fear this is going to cause a great renewal of the insurrectionist tendencies in Trumpworld and tip the balance against less extreme Trump-heirs.

[aurelius]

I fear this is going to cause a great renewal of the insurrectionist tendencies in Trumpworld and tip the balance against less extreme Trump-heirs.

4-D chess: maybe that is the Democrats best opportunity to win the 2024 election cycle.

Personally, I don't like the strategy. I think it is the best interest of the country for the Republican establishment to regain control of the party.

[aurelius]

We agree on a P. Trump issue. Pretty good sign the DA is off his rocker here.

Yes. And he better 100% 'have Trump confessing on a video' have it.

*Update: apparently Trump was indicted with over 30 business fraud charges. Maybe a horse of a different color?

[5hout]

We agree on a P. Trump issue. Pretty good sign the DA is off his rocker here.

Yes.

*Update: apparently Trump was indicted with over 30 business fraud charges. Maybe a horse of a different color?

Possibly? But in my experience working on business fraud cases (some? not a ton? more than 0) once you've broken one law, they can always multiple the charges to a huge #.

[GlasgowJock]

Unless if I am missing something, the Manhattan DA should drop this. Yes, Trump technically broke the law. Something about misuse of campaign finance funds. Let's ignore the low level aspect of it and that it isn't worth going through the trial that will most likely make Trump politically more powerful. The idea is we should treat the President or ex-President the same under the law as everyone else. These types of campaign finance laws are broken all the time at all levels. Remove the salacious details and Trump, charges would not be brought.

Aye pretty much. Douglas Murray has an article on it in today's Telegraph, essentially Alvin Bragg is perceived as being a 'notorious leftie' who thinks building a case against Trump is more important than tackling escalating crime rates in NYC.

Rightly or wrongly, Trump's former VP highlights many see this as a political persecution.

I liked Murray's closing analogy 'A person willing to use any stick to beat an opponent may find they have picked up a boomerang '.

Some think they're intentionally making a martyr of Trump to get him the GOP nomination as the Dems fear De Sanctis more.

[hector]

Some think they're intentionally making a martyr of Trump to get him the GOP nomination as the Dems fear De Sanctis more.

This line of thinking has an appeal to it.
And I remember last time around the democrats commissioned a study to see which Republican candidates would be the toughest to deal with.
But I think it’s usually a mistake to ascribe complex, nuanced plans to those groups. (I think compelling a DA at a state/local level to take action to make a martyr of the victim that will them thrust Trump into the GOP nomination meets that criteria.)
Doesn’t mean it’s not happening, but I think greater than 50% probability that the DA is acting on his own initiative without the DNC or and particular D politician’s handlers incentivizing him.

[dw]

Some think they're intentionally making a martyr of Trump to get him the GOP nomination as the Dems fear De Sanctis more.

This line of thinking has an appeal to it.
And I remember last time around the democrats commissioned a study to see which Republican candidates would be the toughest to deal with.
But I think it’s usually a mistake to ascribe complex, nuanced plans to those groups. (I think compelling a DA at a state/local level to take action to make a martyr of the victim that will them thrust Trump into the GOP nomination meets that criteria.)
Doesn’t mean it’s not happening, but I think greater than 50% probability that the DA is acting on his own initiative without the DNC or and particular D politician’s handlers incentivizing him.

Democrats have used that strategy before in campaigns but I think it's highly improbable that (1) this DA, who has his own career to think about, would allow himself to be used in that way, and (2) any Democratic strategist would have high confidence in such an intricate plan working out as intended. It's all just implausible.

If it's necessary to ascribe partisan motives to the DA it probably just that he thinks it'll be good for his future prospects, particularly in NYC.

[hector]

Some think they're intentionally making a martyr of Trump to get him the GOP nomination as the Dems fear De Sanctis more.

This line of thinking has an appeal to it.
And I remember last time around the democrats commissioned a study to see which Republican candidates would be the toughest to deal with.
But I think it’s usually a mistake to ascribe complex, nuanced plans to those groups. (I think compelling a DA at a state/local level to take action to make a martyr of the victim that will them thrust Trump into the GOP nomination meets that criteria.)
Doesn’t mean it’s not happening, but I think greater than 50% probability that the DA is acting on his own initiative without the DNC or and particular D politician’s handlers incentivizing him.

Democrats have used that strategy before in campaigns but I think it's highly improbable that (1) this DA, who has his own career to think about, would allow himself to be used in that way, and (2) any Democratic strategist would have high confidence in such an intricate plan working out as intended. It's all just implausible.

If it's necessary to ascribe partisan motives to the DA it probably just that he thinks it'll be good for his future prospects, particularly in NYC.

Everything you wrote makes sense to me.

Immediately after I wrote my comment I remembered a few months back, I think , democrats had actually funded far right candidates, idea being that if the far right candidates made it to the primaries then they’d be easier to beat than the moderate Rs. Not as crazy as this other alleged plan, but similar (albeit less complex) idea.

[dw]

Some think they're intentionally making a martyr of Trump to get him the GOP nomination as the Dems fear De Sanctis more.

This line of thinking has an appeal to it.
And I remember last time around the democrats commissioned a study to see which Republican candidates would be the toughest to deal with.
But I think it’s usually a mistake to ascribe complex, nuanced plans to those groups. (I think compelling a DA at a state/local level to take action to make a martyr of the victim that will them thrust Trump into the GOP nomination meets that criteria.)
Doesn’t mean it’s not happening, but I think greater than 50% probability that the DA is acting on his own initiative without the DNC or and particular D politician’s handlers incentivizing him.

Democrats have used that strategy before in campaigns but I think it's highly improbable that (1) this DA, who has his own career to think about, would allow himself to be used in that way, and (2) any Democratic strategist would have high confidence in such an intricate plan working out as intended. It's all just implausible.

If it's necessary to ascribe partisan motives to the DA it probably just that he thinks it'll be good for his future prospects, particularly in NYC.

Everything you wrote makes sense to me.

Immediately after I wrote my comment I remembered a few months back, I think , democrats had actually funded far right candidates, idea being that if the far right candidates made it to the primaries then they’d be easier to beat than the moderate Rs. Not as crazy as this other alleged plan, but similar (albeit less complex) idea.

Yeah, I was alluding to that. There were a couple of notable instances.

[CaptainAwesome]

Some think they're intentionally making a martyr of Trump to get him the GOP nomination as the Dems fear De Sanctis more.

I believe there was evidence in those leaked John Podesta emails a while back they wanted to do this with Trump in the republican primary in 2016. They sized him up as the easiest to beat, so they pushed their connections to boost him. I don't think they are stupid enough to try this again. They seemed to be content to black him out of media entirely after the last failed impeachment disaster, and it was actually working pretty well. I wouldn't be surprised if Bragg has been pressured by others in the party to drop this. Unfortunately, he seems like the template for the really bad urban DAs of the current era. The kind who establish no bail for criminals who later commit violent crimes while awaiting trial, while looking to throw people who don't appeal to his preferred demographic under the bus. Case in point, Jose Alba. He's also a gigantic grifter who pretends to have grown up in a ghetto. He actually grew up in what's known as a pretty decent area. But that kind of shit's pretty standard for any elected official.

[mikeylikey]

they wanted to do this with Trump in the republican primary in 2016. They sized him up as the easiest to beat, so they pushed their connections to boost him. I don't think they are stupid enough to try this again.

I think they are absolutely stupid enough to try this again.
I think they don't even believe it was the wrong strategy last time, rather I think they believe a combination of 1) Trump's win was a fluke, 2) Hillary was a bad candidate, 3) something something Russian facebook accounts, 4) Americans just didn't realize how bad Trump was before but surely we do now
I think they believe they've got all ^this stuff fixed and it's going to work this time.

They seemed to be content to black him out of media entirely after the last failed impeachment disaster, and it was actually working pretty well.

They succeeded in getting him kicked off FB/Twitter and then congratulated themselves on punishing him, and then immediately proceeded to print verbatim every Truth Social rambling and generally continue the pattern of 24/7 coverage of his every move.

[CaptainAwesome]

I think they are absolutely stupid enough to try this again.
I think they don't even believe it was the wrong strategy last time, rather I think they believe a combination of 1) Trump's win was a fluke, 2) Hillary was a bad candidate, 3) something something Russian facebook accounts, 4) Americans just didn't realize how bad Trump was before but surely we do now
I think they believe they've got all ^this stuff fixed and it's going to work this time.

They succeeded in getting him kicked off FB/Twitter and then congratulated themselves on punishing him, and then immediately proceeded to print verbatim every Truth Social rambling and generally continue the pattern of 24/7 coverage of his every move.

I dunno, I didn't hear a fucking peep from Trump for a long time, granted I don't follow any TV news. There was eventually the silly NFT thing that no one seemed to care about other than to laugh at it, and then some sparring with DeSantis. This indictment is what's really made his name come back into popular consciousness in a big way.

[BostonRugger]

I think they are absolutely stupid enough to try this again.
I think they don't even believe it was the wrong strategy last time, rather I think they believe a combination of 1) Trump's win was a fluke, 2) Hillary was a bad candidate, 3) something something Russian facebook accounts, 4) Americans just didn't realize how bad Trump was before but surely we do now
I think they believe they've got all ^this stuff fixed and it's going to work this time.



They succeeded in getting him kicked off FB/Twitter and then congratulated themselves on punishing him, and then immediately proceeded to print verbatim every Truth Social rambling and generally continue the pattern of 24/7 coverage of his every move.

Around the 2020 election, I remember thinking that a benefit of Trump being out of office would be a significant reduction in Trump related histrionics. A pleasant fantasy.

[hector]

I think they are absolutely stupid enough to try this again.
I think they don't even believe it was the wrong strategy last time, rather I think they believe a combination of 1) Trump's win was a fluke, 2) Hillary was a bad candidate, 3) something something Russian facebook accounts, 4) Americans just didn't realize how bad Trump was before but surely we do now
I think they believe they've got all ^this stuff fixed and it's going to work this time.

They succeeded in getting him kicked off FB/Twitter and then congratulated themselves on punishing him, and then immediately proceeded to print verbatim every Truth Social rambling and generally continue the pattern of 24/7 coverage of his every move.

I dunno, I didn't hear a fucking peep from Trump for a long time, granted I don't follow any TV news. There was eventually the silly NFT thing that no one seemed to care about other than to laugh at it, and then some sparring with DeSantis. This indictment is what's really made his name come back into popular consciousness in a big way.

The NfT thing was so stupid. But I had this impulse to buy a bunch of them. Wish I’d listened. They appreciated several times over.

[dw]

Happened to see this story https://nypost.com/2023/04/09/ex-ag-bil ... t-to-dems/.

Barr thinks the indictment was indeed intended to help Trump further eclipse his rivals in the primaries. As some here believed.

Seems like playing with fire to me, not to mention undermining public confidence in the legal and political system.

[CaptainAwesome]

Happened to see this story https://nypost.com/2023/04/09/ex-ag-bil ... t-to-dems/.

Barr thinks the indictment was indeed intended to help Trump further eclipse his rivals in the primaries. As some here believed.

Seems like playing with fire to me, not to mention undermining public confidence in the legal and political system.

It's worth noting that Barr has a serious bias on display here. He, like the democrats in his version of events, believes Trump is the weakest candidate the republicans can field. He definitely isn't. You can make the argument DeSantis will appeal more to independent swing voters (however many of those there are to rely on these days, I don't even know), and he has enough clout. But everyone else that has shown up in polls for likely primary candidates have no chance in hell. You could argue at least if Trump is really their strongest guy, but he is far, far from actually being their weakest.

Also Bragg's quote about how he has to "uphold accountability in the business capital of the world" is fucking hilarious. New York business, especially New York City business, is routinely barely less crooked than outright organized crime (hell, some of it you could just say IS organized crime).

[mikeylikey]

Happened to see this story https://nypost.com/2023/04/09/ex-ag-bil ... t-to-dems/.

Barr thinks the indictment was indeed intended to help Trump further eclipse his rivals in the primaries. As some here believed.

Seems like playing with fire to me, not to mention undermining public confidence in the legal and political system.

That's a little too '4d chess' to be plausible. I don't think the indictment was intended to help Trump. The left is not a monolithic hive mind, they do individually have their own motivations and thought processes. Bragg's motivations are probably mostly limited to getting himself famous and punishing Trump, who he seems to actually want to punish.

I sill perceive that most democrats believe Biden has a better chance against Trump than any plausible GOP nominee.

But there is no reason to thing Bragg is playing a role in some well orchestrated master plan to help Biden by helping Trump by hurting Trump.

[CaptainAwesome]

Another thing worth noting: Bragg has a history of a giant hate-boner for Trump. He "bragged" (lawl) about working on over a hundred lawsuits against the Trump Administration, as part of his campaign for the DA position he now holds. He ran on the promise he was going to do this where his predecessor failed. He is essentially Trump Derangement Syndrome: The Lawyer. He probably thinks somewhere down the line Hollywood will chronicle his "heroic stand" against the Hitler of the 21st century in some dramatized Oscar-bait movie. He also probably isn't wrong to think that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQLflgGxUrU

Listen to one of the dopey radio hosts here. This is what people who voted for him are like. He seems to believe DAs are the ones who convict people, and he only cares about whether or not this guy, as DA, will put Donald Trump on trial however he can. The jury selection pool is going to consist mostly of people like this. Without a change of venue they can do whatever they want and score a guilty verdict. This goofy shit shouldn't have even made it past the grand jury, that's how mentally fucked up people are in that area when it comes to Trump.

[cgeorg]

Lotta derangement syndrome on both sides. Trump *does* seem to have committed crimes, and the defense also gets to participate in jury selection. Do other people also commit crimes and get away with it? Yeah, all the time. That doesn't mean that these ones shouldn't be prosecuted.

Right now, Trump and DeSantis do seem to be the front-runners for the republican primary. I do think a lot of dems would prefer Trump as the general candidate given the previous election, but it's way too early to know how even primaries will shake out. The Biden admin has done fairly well over the past couple of years - onshoring and infrastructure are pretty generally popular. They also now have to deal with a very antagonistic house, so the next 2 years will probably be a bunch of nothing which likely kill any momentum. And The Economy could do anything in the next year and a half (it's ridiculous that money had been free for a decade of record setting growth, who could have seen it coming.) There is still a whole lot of abortion stuff shaking out at the state level that could affect voter motivations.