Keith, thanks. Explaining away Trump's routine escape from prosecution after a lifetime of criminal activity, including sedition in an attempt to overthrow the American government with prosecutorial ambition is a partial explanation.
The most important part of the this story is how two career lawyers spent FIVE years pursuing charges …
Keith, thanks. Explaining away Trump's routine escape from prosecution after a lifetime of criminal activity, including sedition in an attempt to overthrow the American government with prosecutorial ambition is a partial explanation.
The most important part of the this story is how two career lawyers spent FIVE years pursuing charges and were in the final grand jury indictment process. That would have wound up pretty soon and the fact that the new NY DA short circuited it is of great importance.
The two lawyers themselves QUIT, after the new DA killed the whole process near the end, in protest so they were willing to take it to the prosecutorial end.
It was a politician, the DA, who killed the final grand jury process.
A more complete hypothesis may include money and fear.
First Money: Trump, or Trump supporters (maybe in Russia) have routinely handed out enough money to insure his absence from prosecution.
It is not just that a DA may want a 100% record, although, many do. It is also that an elected politician, the DA, are more than willing to take money to close the case 10 minutes before charges were produced from the grand jury.
Second Fear: In Trump's case he has been supported by Russian Oligarchs for roughly 30 years.
Who wants to have one of their kids disappear for going after a loser like Trump?
Nobody.
The above observations are hypotheses based on the fact that poor people routinely go to jail for no crime or minor crime mostly because of lack of representation and advocacy. For more info on going to jail innocent if you are poor see....
The corruption in the USA is sky high and so is hurling accusations, which are readily accepted due to bias and or general beliefs on the part of large groups of people. This comment by you Mike would be of more consequence with evidence attached. Why has the IRS not had a case against Trump for all these years? How are our economic and legal systems corrupt - systematically so? They are major contributors to the heinous wealth gap in the country. This needs to be spelled out, so that the MAGA crowd, in addition to everyone else, knows how we have been and continue to be robbed, in part by those who so easily manipulate the American people.
But, Fern, there will not be a public link to an article outlining how John Doe lawyer/DA took money into a secret Swiss Bank account, then, one week later dropped a case against Trump.
So, let me modify my comment to include the words hypothesis.
❤️Bravo. You understood. Eliminating the 'truth' was a forte of you know who. It is one of the oldest games around. It has to be addressed in government and in what comes out of our mouths and what is expressed in our writing. Propaganda isn't limited to one side of an argument.
Fern, it is not propaganda that two career lawyers quit after having pursued the case for five years and were in grand jury indictment proceedings when the new DA called off the whole thing after being on the job a month.
The above is fact.
It is imperative that people who can think then come up with the most probable reasons that the case was dropped when it was so close to producing charges.
Links to payoffs will not be found on the web for posting here Fern.
To kibbitz a bit: Yes, The New York case is fact, and we know it, but for the sake of others who might read it and NOT know it; a citation of the printed information from a trusted source makes us different from talking heads who don’t have to prove anything — but just keep repeating it!
Gus, my intent concerns the value of facts, coming as close to the truth as we can and not indulging in unsupported accusations and the thoughtless use of language. Truth has taken a terrible beating; deep divisions among people encourages biases, finding fault to find fault, mistrusting almost everything and everyone. Standards disappear, incivility grows and 'reality' evaporates. Such behavior are aspects of a collapsing democracy.
I don’t know how I know it’s true, I just know it’s true. Usually takes 20-30 years for any kind of public verification. Hoping for faster verification on the Kennedy/Deutsche Bank connection. So our deliberately molasses-paced legal system is a set up for the mob…
Amen, Fern! The corruption and the wealth disparity of the U.S., as well as the dynamic interaction of the two, is something all Americans should be taught until they understand. Otherwise, those degenerate conditions will continue and progress until we are a truly failed state with the vast majority of Americans becoming serfs with very few rights. It's no wonder that revolution took place in late19th/early 20th century Russia considering that some 80% of the people were serfs or slaves. They had very little to lose by rebelling to get their rights.
We need a Department of Honorable Conduct to serve as a beacon as well as insure honest and moral methods of running a government are established and enforced. Employees would take an oath with serious consequences if they break their oaths. It might be like the Vestal Virgins of ancient Rome who faced death if they betrayed their oaths. Or like Elliot Ness and the Untouchables who were beyond corruption (as I recall). Individually, members of the DoHC could serve in the model of General George C. Marshall who was a person of immense character and ability completely dedicated to serving his country. FDR chose him [above 34 leaders who outranked him] to build the U.S. WWII military. The whole U.S. respected and fully trusted Marshall. We desperately need a George C. Marshall now. Winston Churchill named him "the architect of the Allied victory" in WWII. When Marshall had a stroke and was dying, Churchill visited him. After leaving Marshall's room, Churchill said Marshall was "the greatest Roman of them all." Funny enough, he stood up to Churchill as no one else would. After WWII, President Truman chose Marshall to be Secretary of State where he developed the Marshall Plan. As soldier and civilian, he was one of a kind. (As an aside, my father knew Marshall well [officially] as he had to brief Marshall daily on Soviet Affairs.)
Hayden I consider George C. Marshall the greatest American of the 20th century. He was the lynch pin of WW II, could face down and be highly respected by Churchill, had incredible integrity and professional selflessness, and saved Ike’s ass several times (which Ike neglected to acknowledge when he was campaigning in Wisconsin in 1952.
Forrest Pogue’s 4-volumes on Marshall I find definitive many years later. There was also an 88-minute video (S. C Humanities Council?) that filled in some human spots from Pogue and others. Marshall’s assessment of Western Europe, after he returned from an unproductive meeting with Stalin, was the spark for the Marshall Plan, which couldn’t have been approved by a Republican Congress without Marshall’s robust support. Also, because of Marshall, the House approved the second year of the peacetime draft in 1941 by one vote.
I believe that he was the only general to receive the Nobel Peace prize.
Keith, I'm glad to see another admirer of General Marshall. Yes, Marshall saved Ike's ass on at least a few occasions. I'll mention a lesser-known example of this here. I'll wind around a bit to finally get to that instance.) My father was part of Ike's General Staff in London starting in September 1942 as they planned Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa. The planners were really rushed for time and worked round the clock, doing in two months which normally would take at least six months. Ike arrived in Algeria in late Nov. or Dec. [after the Op. Torch landing] with half of his staff to set up his HQ in Algiers. The second half of Ike's staff, which included my father, sailed from Scotland on the SS Strathallan with 5,000 British and American soldiers on Dec. 12 headed for Algeria. Also on board were American photographer Margaret Bourke-White and Ike's driver/companion Kay Summersby. After a rough crossing through the Bay of Biscay with 60 ft. waves, the ship passed through the Straits of Gibraltar and into calmer waters. It was the night before their scheduled arrival, and around 1:30-2:00 am, they were torpedoed, and the ship started going down. My father went over the side and ended up in the water clinging to a piece of flotsam and swallowing sea water and oil all night long. He lost everything on the ship and swam [naked] to the beach the next morning. Dad was in hospital for at least a week with horrendous headaches. So, he arrived at the Algiers HQ at the end of December, a few weeks before the Casablanca Conference in January. FDR and Gen. Marshall wanted Ike to come there from Algiers which he did of course.
Now, here's an item which you probably won't find in history books or at least I didn't nor was this item known by the librarian at the Eisenhower Library; and it relates to Ike being saved by Marshall. After Ike went back to Algiers and while the Casablanca Conference was still going on, Ike sent Marshall a telegram, asking him to make a stop in Algiers before returning to Washington, D.C. Ike was having a lot of problems with antagonism between British and American staff members, notably the officers. There had been some serious fights and supposedly one British officer was killed. Ike didn't know how to handle it all since he was really OJT in his command position. Marshall did stop by for a quick meeting with all the staff officers. Gen. Marshall had such presence, and he simply told the American officers that if they didn't behave properly, they'd be sent home, which meant in shame. Marshall's experience and bearing saved Ike in this case.
Ref. the Wisconsin incident, I believe Ike's ambition to be President is what led him to leave Gen. Marshall "out to dry" after Wisconsin's Senator Joe McCarthy had made allegations about Marshall leading a secret communist gathering in Washington. I've read that Ike regretted his behavior in that incident for the rest of his life. The guilt must have been horrendous--that is, to abandon the esteemed Marshall who had given Ike every opportunity to be where he was.
I better stop for now. I really get carried away on this subject. I wrote a book about my parents' journey through WWII ("Buck and Bernice: Love in the Reign of War") in which I wrote a chapter about General Marshall. I'd be happy to send you a copy of that chapter if you write me at: buckandbernice@gmail.com and request it.
Sadly, they don't care. They simply assume "all politicians are the same" and one of the enduring appeals of Trump is he isn't one (amusing, isn't it?)
“Who wants to have one of their kids disappear for going after a loser like Trump? Nobody.” I agree, Mike. I also know that our IRS - as a tool to fight this corruption- has been systemically underfunded for decades making it unable to pursue high net-worth corruption. You need excellence and time to peruse these corrupt power-mongers. IRS cannot afford the best and brightest, nor have they extensive time to deeply untangle the intentionally made knot of secrecy needed to peruse these cases. So paying off Congress, for decades, to underfund the IRS, has crippled our best, first tool fighting corrupt players like trump.
They go after the small fry they have a chance in hell of netting with limited effort OR PUSHBACK. The wealthy, with their tax attorneys on retainer, make a hell scape for IRS white collar investigators. But oh my! The USA is sloshing around in hidden money. Fully funding the white collar crime unit of IRS would reap America billions that its owed.
That's it - so really the only advantage of the West is, that it can lay its hands on Trump - what it will do with that still very much remains to be seen. Do your thing, US of A.
In South Florida there are a lot of Russians. Store signs are written in Cyrillic in Sunny Isles. Also, we have had Russian Mob attacks like throwing acid in ppl's face.
We were staying in Sunnyvale maybe 10 years ago, we were surprised at the number of Russians there. Trump has a hotel/condo there that then seemed mostly empty.
Mike, your arguments make no sense, and as Fern said, you provide no evidence. Heat but no light. The last thing the new DA wants to do is drop the case against Trump. Unless he sees that the case is weak. It lacks hard evidence, as the NYT explained in detail today. There are no emails or correspondence from Trump (he doesn’t use email for this reason, and he tears up all the notes from his meetings) stating that he knows he was cheating on his taxes or on loan applications. There is no credible insider willing to testify (Weisselberg is willing to go to prison rather than turn state’s evidence - he’s the guy who has all the financial info on Trump). The 2 attorneys who have invested 5 years in this case hate to give it up, and don’t want to admit that their case isn’t strong enough. Think about this - if they had the evidence would they still not have indicted Trump after 5 years? I understand that Trump is guilty as sin, a fraud and a con man. But I also get that Trump is slippery enough (trained by Roy Cohn) to leave no evidence and avoid prison. It’s not the new DA’s fault. Can you imagine how bad it would look if the new DA indicted Trump, and the jury found him not guilty due to insufficient evidence? Nor is there a fix. in. There are far more wealthy people who’d love to see Trump behind bars, if that sort of thing was purchasable. Trump is despised in NYC, and hated by the wealthy elites (with a few exceptions, like My Pillow guy). There’s no conspiracy (leave those to the Qanon wackos).
JR, I think your opening line needs qualification. Mike's comment makes perfect sense, as does yours, which opposes Mike's conclusion. This is exactly why many (if not most) conspiracy theories work. The heart of any conspiracy theory is, "Here is the truth, which makes perfect sense. However, there is no evidence for this truth, because it has been deliberately concealed. And there is no evidence for the concealment, because the people who concealed it were good at their job."
Or the evidence is inherently unknowable. For instance, you state, "The last thing the new DA wants to do is drop the case against Trump." You have no evidence for that statement, and even if you knew the new DA personally, you could have no evidence, because he could be lying to you. You are talking about how another person ranks internal motivations. Hardly anyone living has an especially clear notion of their OWN ranking of motivations, much less someone else's.
One rule used in science is Occam's Razor, which gives preference to simplicity. That works reasonably well with "inanimate" reality, because we assume electrons and gasses don't have "motivations" at all. Move it up to the level of "animate" reality, even at the level of microbes, and you suddenly get "motivations." How, exactly, does a yeast colony work? Certainly not like an ideal gas.
I've dismissed a lot of "hearsay" about Trump and Putin that is, right now, starting to look a WHOLE lot more probable. For instance, John Bolton has said that Putin held off on his invasion of Ukraine because he expected Trump to withdraw the US from NATO in his second term. In 2017, this would have sounded like a completely wild conspiracy theory. In 2022, it makes perfect sense. Is there evidence beyond Bolton's statement? ::shrug:: Time will tell.
Sorry Joe, not buying it. The reason it makes no sense for the DA to kill this case is that doing so likely ends his political career. He is an elected official, in a post that most pursue as a stepping stone to higher, state-wide office. Said DA is being pilloried today by commenters here, in the NYT and elsewhere. Most accuse him of taking bribes or being a secret Trump enabler. All promise to never vote for him again. Others call him a coward. His political career is over. The cowardly, low-risk thing to do for the DA would have been to issue an indictment he didn’t believe in and go to trial. If Trump was declared not guilty, the blame would go to Cyrus Vance, or the 2 career lawyers. The DA could say, “I just got here, I was following their advice”. Or he could blame the judge, or the jury.
Meanwhile, Mike’s saying the case was dropped because of bribes by mythical (Russian or otherwise) billionaires or fear of children being assassinated by Russian oligarchs. You know, logical stuff.
Mike, that’s the silliest conjecture I’ve heard here so far (which is saying something). How about, “Let’s say that Danaerys Targaryan threatened to fry the DA with dragon fire unless he dropped the case.” You’re just making stuff up. We have to be better than the MAGA crowd. No baseless conspiracies, stick to facts.
“I am proposing hypthoses (sic) consistent with surrounding situation yes.” No, you’re not. There’s nothing “consistent” with implying that Alvin Bragg took a $45 million bribe and deposited it in a secret Swiss bank account. You're polluting this board with BS. Please “waste time in review” in the future so you don’t waste our time with ridiculous comments.
“Bragg, a Democrat, earned his A.B. from Harvard University, a J.D. from Harvard Law School, clerked for Hon. Robert P. Patterson, Jr. in the Southern District of New York, and was a Visiting Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Racial Justice Project at New York Law School. Alvin is a former member of the Board of Directors of the New York Urban League and a Sunday School teacher at his church…. In 2017, Eric Schneiderman, then serving as attorney general, appointed Bragg Chief Deputy Attorney General of New York. Bragg ran the criminal justice and social justice divisions, overseeing lawsuits brought by the state against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company, and the addition of a citizenship question on the 2020 United States Census. He left the position in December 2018 and became a professor at the New York Law School, where he was co-director of the Racial Justice Project. Bragg is a member of the board of directors for the Legal Aid Society. He has represented the families of Ramarley Graham and Eric Garner in civil litigation against New York City.”
Does he sound like a Trumpite? Can we not resort to ridiculous conjecture?
I know nothing about Bragg, and have been dragged backward into defending hypotheses about the man. No.
My objection is to using dismissive words, like "ridiculous" or "makes no sense" when they are not merited.
A "ridiculous" argument is something like, "To save the village, we had to destroy the village," or "Putin's war on Ukraine flows from Putin's deep empathy for the people of Ukraine." THAT makes no sense.
What you are saying here is, "I know things that you apparently do not, and your theory does not fit the facts as I know them." That is VERY different from "ridiculous."
We are living in a time when the former President of the United States was (and still is) a compulsive, manipulative liar, a narcissist who does nothing -- NOTHING -- without expectation of personal gain, who has plausibly committed seditious conspiracy against the government of the US; where at least half of the Senate is in complete thrall to this man; where somewhere between 20% and 50% of the population is in thrall to this man; where corruption is so endemic to our politics, with gerrymandering and redistricting and voter suppression and propaganda, that we cannot fully trust the outcome of our elections.
We are living in a time where John Eastman, an attorney and legal professor with many of the same qualifications you post above, offered up a bogus legal theory to the President to feed said President's paranoia and narcissism, resulting in an attempted coup on the government. That "honorable man" may now be liable for charges of seditious conspiracy.
Sad as it is to say, NO hypothesis that impugns the integrity of any public figure is "ridiculous." It may be "improbable based on the evidence."
It sounds like Bragg has a pretty good pedigree. Thank you for that information. There is still the question of why he stopped the process, and I've seen nothing here but speculation.
“There is still the question of why he stopped the process, and I've seen nothing here but speculation.” Then you haven’t been reading very closely. Bragg didn’t stop the process. He told the 2 lead attorneys that he was not ready to issue an indictment now because they did not have enough evidence. Many here (including me) have cited news stories explaining what this evidence would be in more detail. The 2 lead attorneys resigned, which may end up stopping the process.
So why did the two leads resign? One, sure: maybe he didn't like the new boss's aftershave. But both?
Clearly they had SOME kind of beef with Bragg, that they didn't have with Vance.
Pretty big beef. They both walked out. Like something big changed. Otherwise, It just don't add up.
Any idea what that might have been? (patting pockets)
Specifically, why did they wait for Vance to leave, if they thought they were not moving forward? They could have bailed under Vance. If they were just pushing a pencil waiting for Vance to leave, then Bragg's statement that they needed "more evidence" would have let them off the hook; no need to resign. If they were both earnestly pursuing a rainbow unicorn under Vance, how is it that Vance and two top attorneys failed to notice that unicorns don't exist until Bragg showed up and told them?
It points to a pretty clear "difference of legal opinion" about what was "enough" at the very least, not just between Bragg and the two leads, but between Bragg and Vance.
Yeah, sure. The new boss wouldn’t support an indictment. After 5 years of their work. The old boss wouldn’t either, after 4 1/2 years of work. If they had a case after 3 years, or after 4 years, Vance could have indicted Trump. He didn’t, which says a lot. Instead he punted it to the new guy. The 2 attorneys quit because they had 5 years invested in the case and it’s hard to admit they fell short. That doesn’t mean the new guy was wrong that their case wasn’t strong enough. What is it about this that you don’t get? Those 2 attorneys worked 5 years to nail Trump. They didn’t pull it off, because it’s impossible to get hard evidence on a shyster like Trump. Doesn’t the fact that they were still trying after 5 years indicate that? How many more years did they need?
Maybe there are some things I don't understand about how the DOJ works, as distinct from ordinary corporate environments. I've worked for years on tech projects, and had them outright canceled over a weekend: the company didn't want to pour any more money into it. Often, it's accompanied by layoffs. If you are retained, and you're unhappy with the inevitable reorg, you start interviewing (quietly) elsewhere, and when you get an offer you like, THEN you let your boss know, "So sorry, but there's an opportunity I can't pass up. It's been a pleasure." Even if the job was really a death march through hell that ended in stupidity and catastrophe, you smile and move on with protestations of good will.
The usual reason a group quits on the spot after a reorg is a bitter argument with the new boss, or with the new corporate direction, or both.
You say Mike's comment makes 'perfect sense'. Can you present an argument for that Joseph that will not take up more that two legal size pages and make sense as well?
Two lead attorneys spend five years building a difficult case, with support of their boss, and are coming to the end of the process, and suddenly, they have a new boss who quashes the investigation. They quit. Those are the basic facts, right? The question is, why?
Two hypotheses are obvious, amid others.
1) Michael's hypothesis is that the new boss is a shill who shut down the investigation for corrupt motives, and the attorneys quit in disgust.
2) JR's hypothesis is that the new boss is clearer-eyed than the old boss, concluded that the case could not succeed, and decided to shut down the investigation as a waste of time and resources. The attorneys quit in disgust.
A third variant suggests itself.
3) The new boss, taking over, started asking some hard questions of the two attorneys, the attorneys did not have good answers and, "not feeling appropriately supported" by their new boss, threatened to walk out. The boss, angry at being railroaded by his subordinates and concerned by the lack of good answers, decides to call their bluff and shut down the project, after which the attorneys quit.
All three of these hypotheses, in the absence of evidence, make perfect sense. I've seen all three scenarios play out in corporate environments over much lower-stakes conflicts.
Fern is correct; it`s called an "Opening Argument" which must resonate with a Jury & be supported by copious amounts of admissible evidence. Note, jurors have done their own property evaluations.
Jury questionnaies, jury selection & necessary disqualifications are Trial skills. Sidebars with prospective jurors saves a lot of the limited number of DQ's.
Two career lawyers with the NY DA office spent five years pursuing this case and at no time indicated they wanted to throw in the towel. They were in the final stages of sorting grand jury indictments. To kill the case BEFORE that outcome is what makes no sense JR.
But, to make sense of what makes no sense, I wrote what I wrote.
The two lawyers on the case, at no time, bagged it or said it was not possible to win indictments.
Then, one month after a new DA was elected, he killed the grand jury standard process.
The US can thank Robert and Diana Mercer for funding Cambridge Analytica's development in Britain, then paying to establish it in the US and paying the Trump campaign to adopt it; then paying for Facebook to use it. The Mercers also paid for Steve Bannon's and KellyAnne Conway's salaries to take over the floundering Trump campaign in 2016 after Manafort resigned.
Then there's the deal Trump made with Sheldon Adelson--always transactional. Just as Trump adopted the Federalist Society List of potential SCOTUS nominees in exchange for money and votes, Trump adopted Adelson's wish list for Israel in exchange for Adelson's money. (not being antisemitic; had friends in ZOA who bragged about the deal.) One more item on Adelson's list: Marion Adelson received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Trump.
And all of this took place in plain view of those who are heavily involved in political matters. It's no wonder that our democracy is in peril, and that's not hyperbole.
Republicans not only knew; made crucial introductions and applauded—and voted for Trump. It’s a pivotal moment for the US, as Heather stated with President Biden
Keith, thanks. Explaining away Trump's routine escape from prosecution after a lifetime of criminal activity, including sedition in an attempt to overthrow the American government with prosecutorial ambition is a partial explanation.
The most important part of the this story is how two career lawyers spent FIVE years pursuing charges and were in the final grand jury indictment process. That would have wound up pretty soon and the fact that the new NY DA short circuited it is of great importance.
The two lawyers themselves QUIT, after the new DA killed the whole process near the end, in protest so they were willing to take it to the prosecutorial end.
It was a politician, the DA, who killed the final grand jury process.
A more complete hypothesis may include money and fear.
First Money: Trump, or Trump supporters (maybe in Russia) have routinely handed out enough money to insure his absence from prosecution.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/332270-eric-trump-in-2014-we-dont-rely-on-american-banks-we-have-all-the-funding-we
It is not just that a DA may want a 100% record, although, many do. It is also that an elected politician, the DA, are more than willing to take money to close the case 10 minutes before charges were produced from the grand jury.
Second Fear: In Trump's case he has been supported by Russian Oligarchs for roughly 30 years.
Who wants to have one of their kids disappear for going after a loser like Trump?
Nobody.
The above observations are hypotheses based on the fact that poor people routinely go to jail for no crime or minor crime mostly because of lack of representation and advocacy. For more info on going to jail innocent if you are poor see....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Mercy_(book)
Trump: Has PLENTY of people advocating for him with plenty of money.
The corruption in the USA is sky high and so is hurling accusations, which are readily accepted due to bias and or general beliefs on the part of large groups of people. This comment by you Mike would be of more consequence with evidence attached. Why has the IRS not had a case against Trump for all these years? How are our economic and legal systems corrupt - systematically so? They are major contributors to the heinous wealth gap in the country. This needs to be spelled out, so that the MAGA crowd, in addition to everyone else, knows how we have been and continue to be robbed, in part by those who so easily manipulate the American people.
Fern. Thanks for your effort to ensure veracity in published comments.
Here is one quote from Eric Trump outlining the source of Trump's money:
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/332270-eric-trump-in-2014-we-dont-rely-on-american-banks-we-have-all-the-funding-we
But, Fern, there will not be a public link to an article outlining how John Doe lawyer/DA took money into a secret Swiss Bank account, then, one week later dropped a case against Trump.
So, let me modify my comment to include the words hypothesis.
❤️Bravo. You understood. Eliminating the 'truth' was a forte of you know who. It is one of the oldest games around. It has to be addressed in government and in what comes out of our mouths and what is expressed in our writing. Propaganda isn't limited to one side of an argument.
Fern, it is not propaganda that two career lawyers quit after having pursued the case for five years and were in grand jury indictment proceedings when the new DA called off the whole thing after being on the job a month.
The above is fact.
It is imperative that people who can think then come up with the most probable reasons that the case was dropped when it was so close to producing charges.
Links to payoffs will not be found on the web for posting here Fern.
To kibbitz a bit: Yes, The New York case is fact, and we know it, but for the sake of others who might read it and NOT know it; a citation of the printed information from a trusted source makes us different from talking heads who don’t have to prove anything — but just keep repeating it!
Patricia.
This makes sense. I had posted a gift link to this article a week or so ago on these boards when the NY Times first published their article.
I should have looked that up an added it. Agree.
Fern, I will be monitoring my own comments even more for cites and sources than I already do; however, I like the other replies to your reply as well.
Gus, my intent concerns the value of facts, coming as close to the truth as we can and not indulging in unsupported accusations and the thoughtless use of language. Truth has taken a terrible beating; deep divisions among people encourages biases, finding fault to find fault, mistrusting almost everything and everyone. Standards disappear, incivility grows and 'reality' evaporates. Such behavior are aspects of a collapsing democracy.
I don’t know how I know it’s true, I just know it’s true. Usually takes 20-30 years for any kind of public verification. Hoping for faster verification on the Kennedy/Deutsche Bank connection. So our deliberately molasses-paced legal system is a set up for the mob…
Amen, Fern! The corruption and the wealth disparity of the U.S., as well as the dynamic interaction of the two, is something all Americans should be taught until they understand. Otherwise, those degenerate conditions will continue and progress until we are a truly failed state with the vast majority of Americans becoming serfs with very few rights. It's no wonder that revolution took place in late19th/early 20th century Russia considering that some 80% of the people were serfs or slaves. They had very little to lose by rebelling to get their rights.
We need a Department of Honorable Conduct to serve as a beacon as well as insure honest and moral methods of running a government are established and enforced. Employees would take an oath with serious consequences if they break their oaths. It might be like the Vestal Virgins of ancient Rome who faced death if they betrayed their oaths. Or like Elliot Ness and the Untouchables who were beyond corruption (as I recall). Individually, members of the DoHC could serve in the model of General George C. Marshall who was a person of immense character and ability completely dedicated to serving his country. FDR chose him [above 34 leaders who outranked him] to build the U.S. WWII military. The whole U.S. respected and fully trusted Marshall. We desperately need a George C. Marshall now. Winston Churchill named him "the architect of the Allied victory" in WWII. When Marshall had a stroke and was dying, Churchill visited him. After leaving Marshall's room, Churchill said Marshall was "the greatest Roman of them all." Funny enough, he stood up to Churchill as no one else would. After WWII, President Truman chose Marshall to be Secretary of State where he developed the Marshall Plan. As soldier and civilian, he was one of a kind. (As an aside, my father knew Marshall well [officially] as he had to brief Marshall daily on Soviet Affairs.)
Hayden I consider George C. Marshall the greatest American of the 20th century. He was the lynch pin of WW II, could face down and be highly respected by Churchill, had incredible integrity and professional selflessness, and saved Ike’s ass several times (which Ike neglected to acknowledge when he was campaigning in Wisconsin in 1952.
Forrest Pogue’s 4-volumes on Marshall I find definitive many years later. There was also an 88-minute video (S. C Humanities Council?) that filled in some human spots from Pogue and others. Marshall’s assessment of Western Europe, after he returned from an unproductive meeting with Stalin, was the spark for the Marshall Plan, which couldn’t have been approved by a Republican Congress without Marshall’s robust support. Also, because of Marshall, the House approved the second year of the peacetime draft in 1941 by one vote.
I believe that he was the only general to receive the Nobel Peace prize.
Keith, Listening to you and Heydon is close to heaven.
Keith, I'm glad to see another admirer of General Marshall. Yes, Marshall saved Ike's ass on at least a few occasions. I'll mention a lesser-known example of this here. I'll wind around a bit to finally get to that instance.) My father was part of Ike's General Staff in London starting in September 1942 as they planned Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa. The planners were really rushed for time and worked round the clock, doing in two months which normally would take at least six months. Ike arrived in Algeria in late Nov. or Dec. [after the Op. Torch landing] with half of his staff to set up his HQ in Algiers. The second half of Ike's staff, which included my father, sailed from Scotland on the SS Strathallan with 5,000 British and American soldiers on Dec. 12 headed for Algeria. Also on board were American photographer Margaret Bourke-White and Ike's driver/companion Kay Summersby. After a rough crossing through the Bay of Biscay with 60 ft. waves, the ship passed through the Straits of Gibraltar and into calmer waters. It was the night before their scheduled arrival, and around 1:30-2:00 am, they were torpedoed, and the ship started going down. My father went over the side and ended up in the water clinging to a piece of flotsam and swallowing sea water and oil all night long. He lost everything on the ship and swam [naked] to the beach the next morning. Dad was in hospital for at least a week with horrendous headaches. So, he arrived at the Algiers HQ at the end of December, a few weeks before the Casablanca Conference in January. FDR and Gen. Marshall wanted Ike to come there from Algiers which he did of course.
Now, here's an item which you probably won't find in history books or at least I didn't nor was this item known by the librarian at the Eisenhower Library; and it relates to Ike being saved by Marshall. After Ike went back to Algiers and while the Casablanca Conference was still going on, Ike sent Marshall a telegram, asking him to make a stop in Algiers before returning to Washington, D.C. Ike was having a lot of problems with antagonism between British and American staff members, notably the officers. There had been some serious fights and supposedly one British officer was killed. Ike didn't know how to handle it all since he was really OJT in his command position. Marshall did stop by for a quick meeting with all the staff officers. Gen. Marshall had such presence, and he simply told the American officers that if they didn't behave properly, they'd be sent home, which meant in shame. Marshall's experience and bearing saved Ike in this case.
Ref. the Wisconsin incident, I believe Ike's ambition to be President is what led him to leave Gen. Marshall "out to dry" after Wisconsin's Senator Joe McCarthy had made allegations about Marshall leading a secret communist gathering in Washington. I've read that Ike regretted his behavior in that incident for the rest of his life. The guilt must have been horrendous--that is, to abandon the esteemed Marshall who had given Ike every opportunity to be where he was.
I better stop for now. I really get carried away on this subject. I wrote a book about my parents' journey through WWII ("Buck and Bernice: Love in the Reign of War") in which I wrote a chapter about General Marshall. I'd be happy to send you a copy of that chapter if you write me at: buckandbernice@gmail.com and request it.
Heydon, I had the chills reading your eloquent and historical reply. It is a keeper, and I still have the chills. Thank you.
Thanks, Fern. I appreciate that.
With utmost respect, Heydon.
Sadly, they don't care. They simply assume "all politicians are the same" and one of the enduring appeals of Trump is he isn't one (amusing, isn't it?)
🎯
Gotta ❤️this one, Fern!
We need more heart than ever! Thank you, Marlene. Here's to looking at you❤️🌿❤️🌻❤️!
“Who wants to have one of their kids disappear for going after a loser like Trump? Nobody.” I agree, Mike. I also know that our IRS - as a tool to fight this corruption- has been systemically underfunded for decades making it unable to pursue high net-worth corruption. You need excellence and time to peruse these corrupt power-mongers. IRS cannot afford the best and brightest, nor have they extensive time to deeply untangle the intentionally made knot of secrecy needed to peruse these cases. So paying off Congress, for decades, to underfund the IRS, has crippled our best, first tool fighting corrupt players like trump.
Yes, the IRS has limited funding, but, they DO go after people and they NEVER went after Trump.
They go after the small fry they have a chance in hell of netting with limited effort OR PUSHBACK. The wealthy, with their tax attorneys on retainer, make a hell scape for IRS white collar investigators. But oh my! The USA is sloshing around in hidden money. Fully funding the white collar crime unit of IRS would reap America billions that its owed.
Yes, well TFG and the other so-called millionaires/billionaires as well.
Michelle, totally agree with you.
That the IRS is underfunded is FACT. My thoughtful ‘hypothesis’ is that some of the IRS officials are overfunded....
Gus, very good hypthesis indeed!
That's it - so really the only advantage of the West is, that it can lay its hands on Trump - what it will do with that still very much remains to be seen. Do your thing, US of A.
In South Florida there are a lot of Russians. Store signs are written in Cyrillic in Sunny Isles. Also, we have had Russian Mob attacks like throwing acid in ppl's face.
We were staying in Sunnyvale maybe 10 years ago, we were surprised at the number of Russians there. Trump has a hotel/condo there that then seemed mostly empty.
Thought it had more than a few Russian pregnant girls.
Mike, your arguments make no sense, and as Fern said, you provide no evidence. Heat but no light. The last thing the new DA wants to do is drop the case against Trump. Unless he sees that the case is weak. It lacks hard evidence, as the NYT explained in detail today. There are no emails or correspondence from Trump (he doesn’t use email for this reason, and he tears up all the notes from his meetings) stating that he knows he was cheating on his taxes or on loan applications. There is no credible insider willing to testify (Weisselberg is willing to go to prison rather than turn state’s evidence - he’s the guy who has all the financial info on Trump). The 2 attorneys who have invested 5 years in this case hate to give it up, and don’t want to admit that their case isn’t strong enough. Think about this - if they had the evidence would they still not have indicted Trump after 5 years? I understand that Trump is guilty as sin, a fraud and a con man. But I also get that Trump is slippery enough (trained by Roy Cohn) to leave no evidence and avoid prison. It’s not the new DA’s fault. Can you imagine how bad it would look if the new DA indicted Trump, and the jury found him not guilty due to insufficient evidence? Nor is there a fix. in. There are far more wealthy people who’d love to see Trump behind bars, if that sort of thing was purchasable. Trump is despised in NYC, and hated by the wealthy elites (with a few exceptions, like My Pillow guy). There’s no conspiracy (leave those to the Qanon wackos).
JR, I think your opening line needs qualification. Mike's comment makes perfect sense, as does yours, which opposes Mike's conclusion. This is exactly why many (if not most) conspiracy theories work. The heart of any conspiracy theory is, "Here is the truth, which makes perfect sense. However, there is no evidence for this truth, because it has been deliberately concealed. And there is no evidence for the concealment, because the people who concealed it were good at their job."
Or the evidence is inherently unknowable. For instance, you state, "The last thing the new DA wants to do is drop the case against Trump." You have no evidence for that statement, and even if you knew the new DA personally, you could have no evidence, because he could be lying to you. You are talking about how another person ranks internal motivations. Hardly anyone living has an especially clear notion of their OWN ranking of motivations, much less someone else's.
One rule used in science is Occam's Razor, which gives preference to simplicity. That works reasonably well with "inanimate" reality, because we assume electrons and gasses don't have "motivations" at all. Move it up to the level of "animate" reality, even at the level of microbes, and you suddenly get "motivations." How, exactly, does a yeast colony work? Certainly not like an ideal gas.
I've dismissed a lot of "hearsay" about Trump and Putin that is, right now, starting to look a WHOLE lot more probable. For instance, John Bolton has said that Putin held off on his invasion of Ukraine because he expected Trump to withdraw the US from NATO in his second term. In 2017, this would have sounded like a completely wild conspiracy theory. In 2022, it makes perfect sense. Is there evidence beyond Bolton's statement? ::shrug:: Time will tell.
Sorry Joe, not buying it. The reason it makes no sense for the DA to kill this case is that doing so likely ends his political career. He is an elected official, in a post that most pursue as a stepping stone to higher, state-wide office. Said DA is being pilloried today by commenters here, in the NYT and elsewhere. Most accuse him of taking bribes or being a secret Trump enabler. All promise to never vote for him again. Others call him a coward. His political career is over. The cowardly, low-risk thing to do for the DA would have been to issue an indictment he didn’t believe in and go to trial. If Trump was declared not guilty, the blame would go to Cyrus Vance, or the 2 career lawyers. The DA could say, “I just got here, I was following their advice”. Or he could blame the judge, or the jury.
Meanwhile, Mike’s saying the case was dropped because of bribes by mythical (Russian or otherwise) billionaires or fear of children being assassinated by Russian oligarchs. You know, logical stuff.
JR. Let's say you were a DA but were offered $45 million to kill the case.
Would you worry much about re-election after the deposit was made in the Swiss Bank account??
:-)
I think not my friend.
Mike, that’s the silliest conjecture I’ve heard here so far (which is saying something). How about, “Let’s say that Danaerys Targaryan threatened to fry the DA with dragon fire unless he dropped the case.” You’re just making stuff up. We have to be better than the MAGA crowd. No baseless conspiracies, stick to facts.
JR. I am proposing hypotheses consistent with surrounding situation yes.
But, as I pointed out to Fern.
This is not the "Jouranal of Electronic Engineering" this is an board that requires no submission or review to post to.
So, I post my perspective. It is TOTALLY OK with me if you or Fern do not share that perspective (for any reason at all).
But, this board is so good because we don't have to waste a bunch of time in review.
“I am proposing hypthoses (sic) consistent with surrounding situation yes.” No, you’re not. There’s nothing “consistent” with implying that Alvin Bragg took a $45 million bribe and deposited it in a secret Swiss bank account. You're polluting this board with BS. Please “waste time in review” in the future so you don’t waste our time with ridiculous comments.
JR. Of course, you are welcome to skip anything I write so as not to pollute your mind.
right?
That's a good argument, given that this is a New York DA. OTOH, if he's a Trumpite....
A Trumpite? Do you know anything about the man?
“Bragg, a Democrat, earned his A.B. from Harvard University, a J.D. from Harvard Law School, clerked for Hon. Robert P. Patterson, Jr. in the Southern District of New York, and was a Visiting Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Racial Justice Project at New York Law School. Alvin is a former member of the Board of Directors of the New York Urban League and a Sunday School teacher at his church…. In 2017, Eric Schneiderman, then serving as attorney general, appointed Bragg Chief Deputy Attorney General of New York. Bragg ran the criminal justice and social justice divisions, overseeing lawsuits brought by the state against the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company, and the addition of a citizenship question on the 2020 United States Census. He left the position in December 2018 and became a professor at the New York Law School, where he was co-director of the Racial Justice Project. Bragg is a member of the board of directors for the Legal Aid Society. He has represented the families of Ramarley Graham and Eric Garner in civil litigation against New York City.”
Does he sound like a Trumpite? Can we not resort to ridiculous conjecture?
Sigh.
I know nothing about Bragg, and have been dragged backward into defending hypotheses about the man. No.
My objection is to using dismissive words, like "ridiculous" or "makes no sense" when they are not merited.
A "ridiculous" argument is something like, "To save the village, we had to destroy the village," or "Putin's war on Ukraine flows from Putin's deep empathy for the people of Ukraine." THAT makes no sense.
What you are saying here is, "I know things that you apparently do not, and your theory does not fit the facts as I know them." That is VERY different from "ridiculous."
We are living in a time when the former President of the United States was (and still is) a compulsive, manipulative liar, a narcissist who does nothing -- NOTHING -- without expectation of personal gain, who has plausibly committed seditious conspiracy against the government of the US; where at least half of the Senate is in complete thrall to this man; where somewhere between 20% and 50% of the population is in thrall to this man; where corruption is so endemic to our politics, with gerrymandering and redistricting and voter suppression and propaganda, that we cannot fully trust the outcome of our elections.
We are living in a time where John Eastman, an attorney and legal professor with many of the same qualifications you post above, offered up a bogus legal theory to the President to feed said President's paranoia and narcissism, resulting in an attempted coup on the government. That "honorable man" may now be liable for charges of seditious conspiracy.
Sad as it is to say, NO hypothesis that impugns the integrity of any public figure is "ridiculous." It may be "improbable based on the evidence."
It sounds like Bragg has a pretty good pedigree. Thank you for that information. There is still the question of why he stopped the process, and I've seen nothing here but speculation.
So well said, Joseph!
“There is still the question of why he stopped the process, and I've seen nothing here but speculation.” Then you haven’t been reading very closely. Bragg didn’t stop the process. He told the 2 lead attorneys that he was not ready to issue an indictment now because they did not have enough evidence. Many here (including me) have cited news stories explaining what this evidence would be in more detail. The 2 lead attorneys resigned, which may end up stopping the process.
Good Lord, I feel like Columbo. (patting pockets)
So why did the two leads resign? One, sure: maybe he didn't like the new boss's aftershave. But both?
Clearly they had SOME kind of beef with Bragg, that they didn't have with Vance.
Pretty big beef. They both walked out. Like something big changed. Otherwise, It just don't add up.
Any idea what that might have been? (patting pockets)
Specifically, why did they wait for Vance to leave, if they thought they were not moving forward? They could have bailed under Vance. If they were just pushing a pencil waiting for Vance to leave, then Bragg's statement that they needed "more evidence" would have let them off the hook; no need to resign. If they were both earnestly pursuing a rainbow unicorn under Vance, how is it that Vance and two top attorneys failed to notice that unicorns don't exist until Bragg showed up and told them?
It points to a pretty clear "difference of legal opinion" about what was "enough" at the very least, not just between Bragg and the two leads, but between Bragg and Vance.
Or that something else changed.
Preet Bharara said back in July of 2021 that there probably wasn’t a case against Trump, when Cyrus Vance indicted Trump’s accountant but not Trump himself. https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/562537-why-trump-probably-wont-be-indicted
Bharara repeated on 3/1 that it’s likely there’s not a strong enough case in his podcast. https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Stay-Tuned-with-Preet-p1018528/?topicId=170223885
“There’s no slam-dunk case without a cooperating witness”, Preet Bharara.
Yeah, sure. The new boss wouldn’t support an indictment. After 5 years of their work. The old boss wouldn’t either, after 4 1/2 years of work. If they had a case after 3 years, or after 4 years, Vance could have indicted Trump. He didn’t, which says a lot. Instead he punted it to the new guy. The 2 attorneys quit because they had 5 years invested in the case and it’s hard to admit they fell short. That doesn’t mean the new guy was wrong that their case wasn’t strong enough. What is it about this that you don’t get? Those 2 attorneys worked 5 years to nail Trump. They didn’t pull it off, because it’s impossible to get hard evidence on a shyster like Trump. Doesn’t the fact that they were still trying after 5 years indicate that? How many more years did they need?
Maybe there are some things I don't understand about how the DOJ works, as distinct from ordinary corporate environments. I've worked for years on tech projects, and had them outright canceled over a weekend: the company didn't want to pour any more money into it. Often, it's accompanied by layoffs. If you are retained, and you're unhappy with the inevitable reorg, you start interviewing (quietly) elsewhere, and when you get an offer you like, THEN you let your boss know, "So sorry, but there's an opportunity I can't pass up. It's been a pleasure." Even if the job was really a death march through hell that ended in stupidity and catastrophe, you smile and move on with protestations of good will.
The usual reason a group quits on the spot after a reorg is a bitter argument with the new boss, or with the new corporate direction, or both.
Thank you for that clarification! :-)
Joseph. I upgraded to BEST POST OF THE DAY.
:-)
I've heard "Trumpite" used to refer to the Trump cultists.
You say Mike's comment makes 'perfect sense'. Can you present an argument for that Joseph that will not take up more that two legal size pages and make sense as well?
It seems pretty obvious to me.
Two lead attorneys spend five years building a difficult case, with support of their boss, and are coming to the end of the process, and suddenly, they have a new boss who quashes the investigation. They quit. Those are the basic facts, right? The question is, why?
Two hypotheses are obvious, amid others.
1) Michael's hypothesis is that the new boss is a shill who shut down the investigation for corrupt motives, and the attorneys quit in disgust.
2) JR's hypothesis is that the new boss is clearer-eyed than the old boss, concluded that the case could not succeed, and decided to shut down the investigation as a waste of time and resources. The attorneys quit in disgust.
A third variant suggests itself.
3) The new boss, taking over, started asking some hard questions of the two attorneys, the attorneys did not have good answers and, "not feeling appropriately supported" by their new boss, threatened to walk out. The boss, angry at being railroaded by his subordinates and concerned by the lack of good answers, decides to call their bluff and shut down the project, after which the attorneys quit.
All three of these hypotheses, in the absence of evidence, make perfect sense. I've seen all three scenarios play out in corporate environments over much lower-stakes conflicts.
Does that clarify?
Joseph.
Yes, Why would the new DA interrupt the grand jury process EVEN if he had a perception different from the people who spent FIVE years on it.
Let it play out like all the rest of them do. If the grand jury produces no indictments, well, there you have it.
BUT WE WILL NEVER KNOW now will we.?
Much time and many suppositions would have been unnecessary had you read the article in question. See the link below.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/05/nyregion/trump-investigation-manhattan-da-alvin-bragg.html?searchResultPosition=1
Fern, in a separate post I point out flaws in the NY Times article.
True statement. It's behind a paywall I'm not paying for.
"Makes no sense" is (in my mind) quite distinct from "is not supported by the evidence."
Fern is correct; it`s called an "Opening Argument" which must resonate with a Jury & be supported by copious amounts of admissible evidence. Note, jurors have done their own property evaluations.
Bryan, Thank you for the amicus brief. Can I take you with me?
Jury questionnaies, jury selection & necessary disqualifications are Trial skills. Sidebars with prospective jurors saves a lot of the limited number of DQ's.
Oh, those Sidebars are intoxicating.
Joseph,
Makes perfect sense. I am sure if Trump wins, he will remove us from NATO.
Tucker Carlson will tell Americans what to think about that, and, they will think what Tucker Carlson wants them to think.
Thank you JR for your perspective on this.
JR.
Thanks.
Two career lawyers with the NY DA office spent five years pursuing this case and at no time indicated they wanted to throw in the towel. They were in the final stages of sorting grand jury indictments. To kill the case BEFORE that outcome is what makes no sense JR.
But, to make sense of what makes no sense, I wrote what I wrote.
The two lawyers on the case, at no time, bagged it or said it was not possible to win indictments.
Then, one month after a new DA was elected, he killed the grand jury standard process.
Why?
I've been thinking along the same lines. Trump was never alone in his crimes. He would never have made it into the Oval Office alone.
The US can thank Robert and Diana Mercer for funding Cambridge Analytica's development in Britain, then paying to establish it in the US and paying the Trump campaign to adopt it; then paying for Facebook to use it. The Mercers also paid for Steve Bannon's and KellyAnne Conway's salaries to take over the floundering Trump campaign in 2016 after Manafort resigned.
Then there's the deal Trump made with Sheldon Adelson--always transactional. Just as Trump adopted the Federalist Society List of potential SCOTUS nominees in exchange for money and votes, Trump adopted Adelson's wish list for Israel in exchange for Adelson's money. (not being antisemitic; had friends in ZOA who bragged about the deal.) One more item on Adelson's list: Marion Adelson received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Trump.
Yes exactly…😡
And all of this took place in plain view of those who are heavily involved in political matters. It's no wonder that our democracy is in peril, and that's not hyperbole.
Republicans not only knew; made crucial introductions and applauded—and voted for Trump. It’s a pivotal moment for the US, as Heather stated with President Biden
He was a useful idiot, not only to Putin, but also the Republicans, and will continue to be - until he is viewed as a liability.
Correct usage of the “village idiot”.
Head spinning here…
Thanks Mike. After following your link I was hooked. I feel compelled to read it.
Yes indeed.