Yes Matt, you floundering journalist, if you can even call him that. He has nothing on Hannity or Tucker.
Agreed, this verdict was the least important or critical of all the criminal charges leveled against Trump.
Unfortunately, the Federalist Society owns the federal courts, and they made it clear that Trump should not be prosecuted during an election year; denying justice to over 170 million people.
And clearly Trump is guilty; not only was he convicted by 12 jurors of his peers, but not one Trump MAGA sycophant like Matt, has even denied Trump is guilty. Instead, they argue the process was coerced, and the case; political.
So much for making a clear, precise and logical argument. Instead all we hear is noise and banter.
As Carl Sandburg once said, “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.
Sounds like Matt and the rest of the clown car, are just yelling “bloody hell”…:)
Not so fast. It's not a hush money case. It is an election fraud case, in which Trump stole millions of votes by preventing damaging information about his behavior to become known to the voting public. In that regard it is very, very important, and the jury obviously also saw it that way.
Interesting that Matt mentions Lehman Brothers who claimed bankruptcy once (granted it took 14 years to complete) but Trump/Org managed to claim 4 within a 2 year time frame and added 2 more a decade later and claimed this made him a good businessman... So much BS...and fraud.
Confessed Rapist Matt Taibbi continues to be terrible. It’s important to remember when discussing Taibbi that he first achieved fame by bragging about raping young teens in Russia, and when called out for being disgusting, defended himself by saying it was just a joke. So, either he is a rapist ot he thinks rape is something to joke about.
“shocking to see formerly reputable journalists like Taibbi”
No no no no no, not this again
Taibbi was never reputable, he just used to reach conclusions we agreed with, go back and read his GFC stuff, it’s made up of the same weak linkages packaged as if they are iron clad proof, the same sketchy inferences drawn from weak evidence and the same ideologically motivated conclusions defining which facts he highlights and which he leaves out (and frankly the same stench of left wing antisemitism infecting all his writing if you care to stop and take notice)
The fact we used to take this clown seriously says bad things about us, it in no way suggests he has changed as a journalist, his side has changed, his conclusions have changed but the same sloppy lack of rigour and love of false equivalences and just downright weak arguments are all the same
If Trump was a Democrat and Twitter was involved in the coverup then Taibbi would publish a 12 piece series of feature articles punctuated by a congressional hearing
But Is it really a stretch case? For sure, It may be the only one coming. We witnessed our judicial system working. After hearing our diligent and professional public servants, working within a layered judicial system and providing credible factual information leading to a unanimous jury conviction, I was grateful and felt relief that the rule of law was upheld.
I like the comparison I read recently (possibly here, don’t recall):
You have to consider this case in context. Yes, it was the weakest of the four cases Trump currently faces. But that’s like looking at Superman, the Hulk, He-Man, and Schwarzenegger and saying Arnold is weak. Sure, he’s weakest in that group but he’d still fold you in half with ease.
As 34 unanimous guilty verdicts show, the New York DA had a strong case. The remaining ones are even stronger.
1. Hunter Biden will get his day in court like anybody else. He might even testify (I think he will). If he’s found guilty he’ll be sentenced. Just Like Everyone Else
2. Happy for Mexico to get a woman and a scientist to boot! And Jewish! Icing on the cake
3. Taibi was once a good journalist. Now he’s a piss poor one. Fuck him and his high horse, that’s now lame and ill-suited for anything.
Cool, I haven't heard anything about Taibbi for weeks. Did he really compare Trump to Lehman Brothers? I suppose, if you place a man and a corporation on equal footing, a very conservative thing to do indeed. Personally, I see no valid comparison.
No, he’s saying that all criminals should be prosecuted, not just the one who happens to be running against the current Democrat. That’s the point. This prosecution looks totally biased because many similar cases have been ignored by the establishment. Trump is being prosecuted, not because he is guilty, but because he is a threat to the establishment. Lehman Brothers were not a threat to the establishment. They are essentially the establishment.
I see what you're saying, and I roundly agree. Bush would need to have been charged under the Obama administration at the federal level. I tend to think if Bush were charged, it would be beyond nasty as to the rhetoric around political prosecutions. If we think this Trump case was nasty, the Bush one would pulverize it.
I guess what I'm saying is that any prosecution of an official automatically becomes political in nature because they're elected. People who voted for or against these individuals are not going to be convinced otherwise. Unfortunately, following this path leads to unaccountability through the justice system. We wind up back at the argument about how much power we will give them, and I'm not willing to hand out to elected officials the power to escape justice.
Unfortunately, all former Presidents have been handed such a power until now. Right at a time when we see the first anti-establishment President/major candidate in my lifetime. I would say that most of his supporters don't see that as Kosher. Of course, you can just call them deplorables and move on. Nothing to see here.
Well, that's what the Supreme Court is deciding soon. This crime started before Trump was in office. Bush was not given immunity, he simply was never prosecuted. If he had been, then we might have already crossed this bridge on presidential immunity.
Most Trump supporters are not deplorable. They support him for different reasons, and they're not stupid. It would be a tragedy if Democrats do not get around to understanding this. Does this script sound familiar?:
”Okay, so Trump totally did this with the business records. Sure he paid Cohen, and that guy was a scumbag, but Trump knew. He should have just admitted it happened and say she's trying to extort him. But a felony? How did Trump interfere, and who believes anything in the Enquirer? They have stories about aliens all the time. Plus, they didn't even charge the felony they're implying!”.
That's not misinformed, Fox News propaganda. It is actually a very valid point from many Trump supporters. It is also true that the jury could find he committed any or all of three different felonies, and not be unanimous with that decision. The bottom line is that laws need to be clear, and I suspect that aspect will get the case overturned. Maybe.
But here's the thing. None of this is any reason to support Trump, unless you're a millionaire who hangs with porn stars and obsesses about your NDAs. Seriously, and that's the message I think many of his supporters need to consider. Not the ones who believe none of the allegations, or are holed up in their homes awaiting armageddon.
It’s laughable that you lecture Trump supporters about what “they need to consider”. Also, “This” is a reason to support Trump to many people. Mostly because our political system has devolved into such a shit show that Trump is the only alternative to growing authoritarianism of the DC establishment. Who does someone vote for if they fear that the US security state is running us into WW3 and nuclear Armageddon? Not Biden.
Mike, Trump has nobody but himself to blame. Howard Stern practically begged him not to run for precisely this reason. Public figures decide to be such, mostly, and as a result ARE more accountable than you or I, especially elected officials. We expect them to obey the law, and they are onstage almost all the time.
When I drove yesterday, I probably broke the speed limit a little at some point. I'm not a crazy driver, and I like to think I was not endangering anyone. Yet, if I got a ticket, I would pay it because I was in fact speeding. Sure, I could point out five other drivers driving recklessly and ask, ”How come they didn't get a ticket?”. Well, it's because they didn't get caught. I'd like to think the police didn't simply ignore them. My ticket gets added to others so the public knows that traffic laws are being enforced.
Now, what if it were public knowledge that police are no longer enforcing traffic laws in my city? Would the dynamic on the roads change? What if Alvin Bragg did NOT bring the charges? At some point, it almost doesn't matter whether the charges are ”political” when looking at the evidence itself. Many people would be upset for not bringing charges.
People in New York elected Bragg, and Trump committed these crimes in New York. He was tried and convicted in New York. The people in some states have elected others who have made abortion illegal. Is that political? You betcha, except I will never be convinced that it is not unconstitutional, regardless of what SCOTUS says.
The answer is simple. If Bragg’s constituents do not like what he's done, they won't re-elect him. Same goes for people in Florida, Alabama, and the like.
My concern is not for Trump. I could not care less about him. My concern is with the perception, justified or otherwise, that these prosecutions of Trump are seen as political. Not for Trumps sake but for the sake of our future. The idea that the Democratic establishment had “nothing to do” with this is ludicrous. If Trump was not a threat to the powers that be in the US, he would never had been indicted. You may not believe that but many people do. And that is not good. Especially after GWB was allowed to go unpunished for the lies and deception of the Iraq war. But i guess paying off a porn star is much more egregious than lying the country into an aggressive war. Lol
The New York DA has charged dozens of people with over 150 instances of falsifying business records over the past few years. So it’s not “just the one running against a Democrat”. Taibbi isn’t saying what he’s saying in hopes that others get prosecuted. He’s saying what he’s saying to claim there was something wrong about the prosecution of Trump, and there wasn’t.
People, like Taibbi, who don’t like the result of the trial are doing what they’ve done all along: making up bogus reasons the claim something was wrong with it. In the exact opposite of how things should be done (and were done in the prosecution of Trump) Taibbi and Republicans decided FIRST what conclusion they wanted to reach and THEN have been making up things to reach it.
The actual facts are these: Trump received a fair trial where he was given all the due process he was due (and then some). There was no interference or pressure from the Biden administration. A jury of regular citizens FIRST considered the evidence and THEN reached a conclusion of guilty on all counts.
As I said there are those who insist on seeing it as political despite a complete lack of evidence to support what they want to be true (and tons of evidence proving them wrong). Same people who insist the 2020 election was stolen despite over 60 court cases and numerous audits, investigations, and recounts all of which turned up zero evidence for it and literally tons of evidence showing if was free and fair.
Taibbi is one such person. Your accusation that I'm spinning when I'm agreeing with what the facts show to be true strongly suggests you are as well.
The idea that you do not have a biased viewpoint is ludicrous. You are a spin doctor at best. Many Democrats claimed that the 2016 election was stolen by "Russian disinformation". Hillary Clinton herself claimed that Trump was an "illegitimate President". There is no proof that anything Russia did in 2016 affected the election. Democrats cannot take responsibility for anything so they are using censorship, propaganda, and the law to implement their corporate master's agenda.
Now if things go south in November I’ll go south as well. South to Mexico.
I am with you…:)
Yes Matt, you floundering journalist, if you can even call him that. He has nothing on Hannity or Tucker.
Agreed, this verdict was the least important or critical of all the criminal charges leveled against Trump.
Unfortunately, the Federalist Society owns the federal courts, and they made it clear that Trump should not be prosecuted during an election year; denying justice to over 170 million people.
And clearly Trump is guilty; not only was he convicted by 12 jurors of his peers, but not one Trump MAGA sycophant like Matt, has even denied Trump is guilty. Instead, they argue the process was coerced, and the case; political.
So much for making a clear, precise and logical argument. Instead all we hear is noise and banter.
As Carl Sandburg once said, “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.
Sounds like Matt and the rest of the clown car, are just yelling “bloody hell”…:)
Not so fast. It's not a hush money case. It is an election fraud case, in which Trump stole millions of votes by preventing damaging information about his behavior to become known to the voting public. In that regard it is very, very important, and the jury obviously also saw it that way.
There were 3 fundamental problems with the Trump hush money case:
1) Bootstrapping it from misdemeanour to felony required a great deal of legal creativity of the "show me the man and I'll find you the crime" variety
2) Hillary Clinton got a pass under nearly identical circumstances (she was given a small fine)
3) Michael Cohen is a habitual liar, making his testimony pretty suspect
Expect Trump to win his appeal, though of course that won't happen until after the election (which is what this is all about)
https://milesmcstylez.substack.com/p/populists-are-trying-to-save-democracy has more details
He's not going to win his appeal.
Interesting that Matt mentions Lehman Brothers who claimed bankruptcy once (granted it took 14 years to complete) but Trump/Org managed to claim 4 within a 2 year time frame and added 2 more a decade later and claimed this made him a good businessman... So much BS...and fraud.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/jun/21/hillary-clinton/yep-donald-trumps-companies-have-declared-bankrupt/
https://www.sipc.org/news-and-media/news-releases/20220928
Taibbi used to be able to report facts, but somewhere along the line he must have absorbed repeated violent blows to the head.
Confessed Rapist Matt Taibbi continues to be terrible. It’s important to remember when discussing Taibbi that he first achieved fame by bragging about raping young teens in Russia, and when called out for being disgusting, defended himself by saying it was just a joke. So, either he is a rapist ot he thinks rape is something to joke about.
“shocking to see formerly reputable journalists like Taibbi”
No no no no no, not this again
Taibbi was never reputable, he just used to reach conclusions we agreed with, go back and read his GFC stuff, it’s made up of the same weak linkages packaged as if they are iron clad proof, the same sketchy inferences drawn from weak evidence and the same ideologically motivated conclusions defining which facts he highlights and which he leaves out (and frankly the same stench of left wing antisemitism infecting all his writing if you care to stop and take notice)
The fact we used to take this clown seriously says bad things about us, it in no way suggests he has changed as a journalist, his side has changed, his conclusions have changed but the same sloppy lack of rigour and love of false equivalences and just downright weak arguments are all the same
If Trump was a Democrat and Twitter was involved in the coverup then Taibbi would publish a 12 piece series of feature articles punctuated by a congressional hearing
But Is it really a stretch case? For sure, It may be the only one coming. We witnessed our judicial system working. After hearing our diligent and professional public servants, working within a layered judicial system and providing credible factual information leading to a unanimous jury conviction, I was grateful and felt relief that the rule of law was upheld.
I like the comparison I read recently (possibly here, don’t recall):
You have to consider this case in context. Yes, it was the weakest of the four cases Trump currently faces. But that’s like looking at Superman, the Hulk, He-Man, and Schwarzenegger and saying Arnold is weak. Sure, he’s weakest in that group but he’d still fold you in half with ease.
As 34 unanimous guilty verdicts show, the New York DA had a strong case. The remaining ones are even stronger.
1. Hunter Biden will get his day in court like anybody else. He might even testify (I think he will). If he’s found guilty he’ll be sentenced. Just Like Everyone Else
2. Happy for Mexico to get a woman and a scientist to boot! And Jewish! Icing on the cake
3. Taibi was once a good journalist. Now he’s a piss poor one. Fuck him and his high horse, that’s now lame and ill-suited for anything.
Cool, I haven't heard anything about Taibbi for weeks. Did he really compare Trump to Lehman Brothers? I suppose, if you place a man and a corporation on equal footing, a very conservative thing to do indeed. Personally, I see no valid comparison.
It’s not the comparison to Lehman that’s the important part. It’s his “You can’t punish Trump for a crime if others do it also.” nonsense.
As Ben essentially points out in the article, Taibbi is saying flat out that criminals shouldn’t be punished.
And that, if crime gets worse and worse, criminals should be held to account less and less.
No, he’s saying that all criminals should be prosecuted, not just the one who happens to be running against the current Democrat. That’s the point. This prosecution looks totally biased because many similar cases have been ignored by the establishment. Trump is being prosecuted, not because he is guilty, but because he is a threat to the establishment. Lehman Brothers were not a threat to the establishment. They are essentially the establishment.
I see what you're saying, and I roundly agree. Bush would need to have been charged under the Obama administration at the federal level. I tend to think if Bush were charged, it would be beyond nasty as to the rhetoric around political prosecutions. If we think this Trump case was nasty, the Bush one would pulverize it.
I guess what I'm saying is that any prosecution of an official automatically becomes political in nature because they're elected. People who voted for or against these individuals are not going to be convinced otherwise. Unfortunately, following this path leads to unaccountability through the justice system. We wind up back at the argument about how much power we will give them, and I'm not willing to hand out to elected officials the power to escape justice.
Unfortunately, all former Presidents have been handed such a power until now. Right at a time when we see the first anti-establishment President/major candidate in my lifetime. I would say that most of his supporters don't see that as Kosher. Of course, you can just call them deplorables and move on. Nothing to see here.
Well, that's what the Supreme Court is deciding soon. This crime started before Trump was in office. Bush was not given immunity, he simply was never prosecuted. If he had been, then we might have already crossed this bridge on presidential immunity.
Most Trump supporters are not deplorable. They support him for different reasons, and they're not stupid. It would be a tragedy if Democrats do not get around to understanding this. Does this script sound familiar?:
”Okay, so Trump totally did this with the business records. Sure he paid Cohen, and that guy was a scumbag, but Trump knew. He should have just admitted it happened and say she's trying to extort him. But a felony? How did Trump interfere, and who believes anything in the Enquirer? They have stories about aliens all the time. Plus, they didn't even charge the felony they're implying!”.
That's not misinformed, Fox News propaganda. It is actually a very valid point from many Trump supporters. It is also true that the jury could find he committed any or all of three different felonies, and not be unanimous with that decision. The bottom line is that laws need to be clear, and I suspect that aspect will get the case overturned. Maybe.
But here's the thing. None of this is any reason to support Trump, unless you're a millionaire who hangs with porn stars and obsesses about your NDAs. Seriously, and that's the message I think many of his supporters need to consider. Not the ones who believe none of the allegations, or are holed up in their homes awaiting armageddon.
It’s laughable that you lecture Trump supporters about what “they need to consider”. Also, “This” is a reason to support Trump to many people. Mostly because our political system has devolved into such a shit show that Trump is the only alternative to growing authoritarianism of the DC establishment. Who does someone vote for if they fear that the US security state is running us into WW3 and nuclear Armageddon? Not Biden.
Mike, Trump has nobody but himself to blame. Howard Stern practically begged him not to run for precisely this reason. Public figures decide to be such, mostly, and as a result ARE more accountable than you or I, especially elected officials. We expect them to obey the law, and they are onstage almost all the time.
When I drove yesterday, I probably broke the speed limit a little at some point. I'm not a crazy driver, and I like to think I was not endangering anyone. Yet, if I got a ticket, I would pay it because I was in fact speeding. Sure, I could point out five other drivers driving recklessly and ask, ”How come they didn't get a ticket?”. Well, it's because they didn't get caught. I'd like to think the police didn't simply ignore them. My ticket gets added to others so the public knows that traffic laws are being enforced.
Now, what if it were public knowledge that police are no longer enforcing traffic laws in my city? Would the dynamic on the roads change? What if Alvin Bragg did NOT bring the charges? At some point, it almost doesn't matter whether the charges are ”political” when looking at the evidence itself. Many people would be upset for not bringing charges.
People in New York elected Bragg, and Trump committed these crimes in New York. He was tried and convicted in New York. The people in some states have elected others who have made abortion illegal. Is that political? You betcha, except I will never be convinced that it is not unconstitutional, regardless of what SCOTUS says.
The answer is simple. If Bragg’s constituents do not like what he's done, they won't re-elect him. Same goes for people in Florida, Alabama, and the like.
My concern is not for Trump. I could not care less about him. My concern is with the perception, justified or otherwise, that these prosecutions of Trump are seen as political. Not for Trumps sake but for the sake of our future. The idea that the Democratic establishment had “nothing to do” with this is ludicrous. If Trump was not a threat to the powers that be in the US, he would never had been indicted. You may not believe that but many people do. And that is not good. Especially after GWB was allowed to go unpunished for the lies and deception of the Iraq war. But i guess paying off a porn star is much more egregious than lying the country into an aggressive war. Lol
The New York DA has charged dozens of people with over 150 instances of falsifying business records over the past few years. So it’s not “just the one running against a Democrat”. Taibbi isn’t saying what he’s saying in hopes that others get prosecuted. He’s saying what he’s saying to claim there was something wrong about the prosecution of Trump, and there wasn’t.
People, like Taibbi, who don’t like the result of the trial are doing what they’ve done all along: making up bogus reasons the claim something was wrong with it. In the exact opposite of how things should be done (and were done in the prosecution of Trump) Taibbi and Republicans decided FIRST what conclusion they wanted to reach and THEN have been making up things to reach it.
The actual facts are these: Trump received a fair trial where he was given all the due process he was due (and then some). There was no interference or pressure from the Biden administration. A jury of regular citizens FIRST considered the evidence and THEN reached a conclusion of guilty on all counts.
It looks like a political prosecution to a lot of people no matter how you try to spin it in your favor. Lol
I'm not spinning anything.
As I said there are those who insist on seeing it as political despite a complete lack of evidence to support what they want to be true (and tons of evidence proving them wrong). Same people who insist the 2020 election was stolen despite over 60 court cases and numerous audits, investigations, and recounts all of which turned up zero evidence for it and literally tons of evidence showing if was free and fair.
Taibbi is one such person. Your accusation that I'm spinning when I'm agreeing with what the facts show to be true strongly suggests you are as well.
When did Taibbi claim that the 2020 election was stolen?
The idea that you do not have a biased viewpoint is ludicrous. You are a spin doctor at best. Many Democrats claimed that the 2016 election was stolen by "Russian disinformation". Hillary Clinton herself claimed that Trump was an "illegitimate President". There is no proof that anything Russia did in 2016 affected the election. Democrats cannot take responsibility for anything so they are using censorship, propaganda, and the law to implement their corporate master's agenda.
Unclear who that's directed at.
👍