• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:2761] Trump says he expects to be arrested Tuesday

Who's trying to "pump up a misdemeanor to a felony?"

If you knew (yes, this is a hypothetical question) that Trump would be charged in every one of the investigations that we're currently aware of, would you be okay with this charge?
Prosecutors appear likely to argue the Trump Organization illegally reimbursed Cohen the $130,000 through identifying the payment as legal expenses—as falsifying business records is a misdemeanor offense in New York.

They may also argue the payment was a felony violation of campaign finance law since the cash to allegedly kill the story may have functioned as an illegal donation to help the Trump campaign, though that is the subject of legal debate.




This is why Trump has been touting his lead in the polls, on his Twitter clone; so that he can say this is all political to stop his momentum, imo.

If he is charged in all jurisdictions, how long do you imagine the proccess would take?
 
The rest of that WSJ article on WOKEness in Stanford Law School.

Judge should have asked himself:

Is the juice really worth the squeeze?

After taking a verbal beating from the students and from the idiot Dean of DEI in the school.

===========================================

The protesters weren’t upset by the subject of my talk—a rather dry discourse on how circuit courts interact with the Supreme Court in times of doctrinal flux. Rather, I was their target. While in practice, I represented clients and advanced arguments the protesters hate—for instance, I defended Louisiana’s traditional marriage laws. As for my judicial decisions, among the several hundred I’ve written, the protesters were especially vexed by U.S. v. Varner. A federal prisoner serving a term for attempted receipt of child pornography (and with a previous state conviction for possession of child porn) petitioned our court to order that he be called by feminine pronouns. As my opinion explained, federal courts can’t control what pronouns people use. The Stanford protesters saw it differently: My opinion had “denied a transwoman’s existence.”


When the Federalist Society president tried to introduce me, the heckling began. “The Federalist Society (You suck!) is pleased to welcome Judge Kyle Duncan(You’re not welcome here, we hate you!). . . . He was appointed by President Trump to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Embarrassing!).” And so on. As I began, the heckling continued. Try delivering a speech while being jeered at every third word. This was an utter farce, a staged public shaming. I stopped, pleaded with the students to stop the stream of insults (which only made them louder), and asked if administrators were present.

Enter Tirien Steinbach, associate dean for diversity, equity and inclusion. Ms. Steinbach and (I later learned) other administrators were watching from the periphery. She hadn’t introduced herself to me. She asked to address the students.

Something felt off. I asked her to tell the students their infantile behavior was inappropriate. She insisted she wanted to talk to all of us. Students began screaming, and I reluctantly gave way. Whereupon Ms. Steinbach opened a folio, took out a printed sheaf of papers, and delivered a six-minute speech addressing the question: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”

What could that mean? While the students rhythmically snapped, Ms. Steinbach attempted to explain. My “work,” she said, “has caused harm.” It “feels abhorrent” and “literally denies the humanity of people.” My presence put Ms. Steinbach in a tough spot, she said, because her job “is to create a space of belonging for all people” at Stanford. She assured me I was “absolutely welcome in this space” because “me and many people in this administration do absolutely believe in free speech.” I didn’t feel welcome—who would? And she repeated the cryptic question: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”

I asked again what she meant, and she finally put the question plainly: Was my talk “worth the pain that this causes and the division that this causes?” Again she asserted her belief in free speech before equivocating: “I understand why people feel like the harm is so great that we might need to reconsider those policies, and luckily, they’re in a school where they can learn the advocacy skills to advocate for those changes.” Then she turned the floor back over to me, while hoping I could “learn too” and “listen through your partisan lens, the hyperpolitical lens.” In closing, she said: “I look out and I don’t ask, ‘What’s going on here?’ I look out and I say, ‘I’m glad this is going on here.’ ” This is on video, and the entire event is on audio, in case you’re wondering.

The most disturbing aspect of this shameful debacle is what it says about the state of legal education. Stanford is an elite law school. The protesters showed not the foggiest grasp of the basic concepts of legal discourse: That one must meet reason with reason, not power. That jeering contempt is the opposite of persuasion. That the law protects the speaker from the mob, not the mob from the speaker. Worst of all, Ms. Steinbach’s remarks made clear she is proud that Stanford students are being taught this is the way law should be.

I have been criticized in the media for getting angry at the protesters. It’s true I called them “appalling idiots,” “bullies” and “hypocrites.” They are, and I won’t apologize for saying so. Sometimes anger is the proper response to vicious behavior.

Judge Duncan serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
 
Oh, poor Donnie was persecuted before he became president. Why they rigged the Emmys against him.

Do you ever consider Trump’s long record of crooked dealings and of spreading bigotry thru his Make America Hate Again rhetoric when you suggest he’s being picked on? I’d post the list but it likely exceeds the character limit on DP. Whatever opprobrium falls on Trump is well earned, no embellishments necessary.
Not sure what you are saying here…….
 
I
Here is a perfect example of WOKEism gone amok in one of (supposedly) prestigious universities. You can't just make this stuff up. You need to see it and read it.
After reading this article and viewing the video of what happened in that lecture room, how can anyone with half a brain have any respect for the Stanford Law School and respect for those graduating that that WOKE dungeon?
Parents spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to send the spoiled, elitist kids to that school and this is what is produced.
On top of that, the school pays some dumbshit, WOKE DEI flunky a lot of money to ensure the law school is WOKE enough to "protect free speech".
And people are wondering why Ron DeSantis is so hostile to the WOKE crowd in public schools and even public/private universities.
I am so glad I am no longer involved in higher education either teaching in a university or attending class.
What is scary is that the people totally disrupting that lecture are the ones who will defending or prosecuting future felons and becoming judges. No wonder so many Americans are afraid of what the WOKE culture is producing for the future.

from today's Wall St Journal:


"The most disturbing aspect of this shameful debacle is what it says about the state of legal education. Stanford is an elite law school. The protesters showed not the foggiest grasp of the basic concepts of legal discourse: That one must meet reason with reason, not power. That jeering contempt is the opposite of persuasion. That the law protects the speaker from the mob, not the mob from the speaker. Worst of all, Ms. Steinbach’s remarks made clear she is proud that Stanford students are being taught this is the way law should be.
I have been criticized in the media for getting angry at the protesters. It’s true I called them “appalling idiots,” “bullies” and “hypocrites.” They are, and I won’t apologize for saying so. Sometimes anger is the proper response to vicious behavior."




My Struggle Session at Stanford Law School​

A dean voices pride that students are being taught to stage tantrums rather than make a reasoned case.​


By Stuart Kyle Duncan
March 17, 2023 2:59 pm ET

Stanford Law School’s website touts its “collegial culture” in which “collaboration and the open exchange of ideas are essential to life and learning.” Then there’s the culture I experienced when I visited Stanford last week. I had been invited by the student chapter of the Federalist Society to discuss the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on which I’ve served since 2018. I’ve spoken at law schools across the country, and I was glad to accept this invitation. One of my first clerks graduated from Stanford. I have friends on the faculty. I gave a talk there a few years ago and found it a warm and engaging place, but not this time.
When I arrived, the walls were festooned with posters denouncing me for crimes against women, gays, blacks and “trans people.” Plastered everywhere were photos of the students who had invited me and fliers declaring “You should be ASHAMED,” with the last word in large red capital letters and a horror-movie font. This didn’t seem “collegial.” Walking to the building where I would deliver my talk, I could hear loud chanting a good 50 yards away, reminiscent of a tent revival in its intensity. Some 100 students were massed outside the classroom as I entered, faces painted every color of the rainbow, waving signs and banners, jeering and stamping and howling. As I entered the classroom, one protester screamed: “We hope your daughters get raped!”
I had been warned a few days before about a possible protest. But Stanford administrators assured me they were “on top of it,” that Stanford’s policies permitted “protest but not disruption.” They weren’t “on top of it.” Before my talk started, the mob flooded the room. Banners unfurled. Signs brandished: “FED SUCK,” “Trans Lives Matter” (this one upside down), and others that can’t be quoted in a family newspaper. A nervous dog—literally, a canine—was in the front row, fur striped with paint. A man with a frozen smile approached me, identified himself as the “dean of student engagement,” and asked, “You doing OK?” I don’t remember what I said.
And to think, these are LAW students this place is supposed to be turning out....God help us.
 
Prosecutors appear likely to argue the Trump Organization illegally reimbursed Cohen the $130,000 through identifying the payment as legal expenses—as falsifying business records is a misdemeanor offense in New York.

They may also argue the payment was a felony violation of campaign finance law since the cash to allegedly kill the story may have functioned as an illegal donation to help the Trump campaign, though that is the subject of legal debate.




This is why Trump has been touting his lead in the polls, on his Twitter clone; so that he can say this is all political to stop his momentum, imo.

If he is charged in all jurisdictions, how long do you imagine the proccess would take?
Can you think of a scenario in which he wouldn't claim it was politically motivated? These aren't things I'm really concerned with.
 
Here is a perfect example of WOKEism gone amok in one of (supposedly) prestigious universities. You can't just make this stuff up. You need to see it and read it.
After reading this article and viewing the video of what happened in that lecture room, how can anyone with half a brain have any respect for the Stanford Law School and respect for those graduating that that WOKE dungeon?
Parents spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to send the spoiled, elitist kids to that school and this is what is produced.
On top of that, the school pays some dumbshit, WOKE DEI flunky a lot of money to ensure the law school is WOKE enough to "protect free speech".
And people are wondering why Ron DeSantis is so hostile to the WOKE crowd in public schools and even public/private universities.
I am so glad I am no longer involved in higher education either teaching in a university or attending class.
What is scary is that the people totally disrupting that lecture are the ones who will defending or prosecuting future felons and becoming judges. No wonder so many Americans are afraid of what the WOKE culture is producing for the future.

from today's Wall St Journal:


"The most disturbing aspect of this shameful debacle is what it says about the state of legal education. Stanford is an elite law school. The protesters showed not the foggiest grasp of the basic concepts of legal discourse: That one must meet reason with reason, not power. That jeering contempt is the opposite of persuasion. That the law protects the speaker from the mob, not the mob from the speaker. Worst of all, Ms. Steinbach’s remarks made clear she is proud that Stanford students are being taught this is the way law should be.
I have been criticized in the media for getting angry at the protesters. It’s true I called them “appalling idiots,” “bullies” and “hypocrites.” They are, and I won’t apologize for saying so. Sometimes anger is the proper response to vicious behavior."




My Struggle Session at Stanford Law School​

A dean voices pride that students are being taught to stage tantrums rather than make a reasoned case.​


By Stuart Kyle Duncan
March 17, 2023 2:59 pm ET

Stanford Law School’s website touts its “collegial culture” in which “collaboration and the open exchange of ideas are essential to life and learning.” Then there’s the culture I experienced when I visited Stanford last week. I had been invited by the student chapter of the Federalist Society to discuss the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on which I’ve served since 2018. I’ve spoken at law schools across the country, and I was glad to accept this invitation. One of my first clerks graduated from Stanford. I have friends on the faculty. I gave a talk there a few years ago and found it a warm and engaging place, but not this time.
When I arrived, the walls were festooned with posters denouncing me for crimes against women, gays, blacks and “trans people.” Plastered everywhere were photos of the students who had invited me and fliers declaring “You should be ASHAMED,” with the last word in large red capital letters and a horror-movie font. This didn’t seem “collegial.” Walking to the building where I would deliver my talk, I could hear loud chanting a good 50 yards away, reminiscent of a tent revival in its intensity. Some 100 students were massed outside the classroom as I entered, faces painted every color of the rainbow, waving signs and banners, jeering and stamping and howling. As I entered the classroom, one protester screamed: “We hope your daughters get raped!”
I had been warned a few days before about a possible protest. But Stanford administrators assured me they were “on top of it,” that Stanford’s policies permitted “protest but not disruption.” They weren’t “on top of it.” Before my talk started, the mob flooded the room. Banners unfurled. Signs brandished: “FED SUCK,” “Trans Lives Matter” (this one upside down), and others that can’t be quoted in a family newspaper. A nervous dog—literally, a canine—was in the front row, fur striped with paint. A man with a frozen smile approached me, identified himself as the “dean of student engagement,” and asked, “You doing OK?” I don’t remember what I said.
First, this has nothing to do with the subject of the thread (Trump's indictment.)

Second, while you focus on this one example, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida is going dystopian, firing professors throughout Florida campuses and installing his own right-wing ideologues on the boards of colleges to indoctrinate conservative thought, while white washing discussions of race, gender and inequality. Fortunately, the federal courts are blocking some of the Gov's fascism.
 
Prosecutors appear likely to argue the Trump Organization illegally reimbursed Cohen the $130,000 through identifying the payment as legal expenses—as falsifying business records is a misdemeanor offense in New York.

They may also argue the payment was a felony violation of campaign finance law since the cash to allegedly kill the story may have functioned as an illegal donation to help the Trump campaign, though that is the subject of legal debate.




This is why Trump has been touting his lead in the polls, on his Twitter clone; so that he can say this is all political to stop his momentum, imo.

If he is charged in all jurisdictions, how long do you imagine the proccess would take?
So is Trump smart by wanting to pump up this misdemeanor into a felony so that he gets more sympathy from potential voters?
The more he is accused of the greater the sympathy for him.
Is that a good strategy?
 
Does anybody think that if these prosecutors were republicans that Trump wouldn’t cry “witch hunt,@ call the black prosecutor racist? Look at the Mueller investigation.
The Mueller investigation?
You still don't know that was built on lies?
 
I haven't followed the whole thread, but wanted to comment that people don't seem to really be debating whether or not he's guilty, I think everyone knows Trump is guilty of most of the bullshit he gets accused of, it's just the expectation is he'll get away with it.
What will ultimately determine that is what charges stick. Even before his presidential run Trump had a stink around him in terms of illegality, but since he was never charged with anything, it's just an assumption. The NY case will be interesting in terms of how the hush payments were handled, but the case I'm more interested in and is far more relevant is the one in Georgia, since that one is specific to his role in election fraud.

It's his own mistress, and his own attorney that are primarily testifying against him, it's just hilarious how the base believes the narrative is something else, like Democratic witch hunt.
Perpetual victims will always feel like they're victims of everything. Trump has been deflecting blame of his failures as long as he's been a public figure.

Trump's foundation was shut down for illegality already. He shuttered his "university" to avoid legal trouble.
Five of his campaign staff when to jail for various crimes they engaged in, some while working for Trump.
His family financial officer Weisselberg is sitting in jail in Rykers for his criminal operations in the Trump Organization.

If this had been anyone else, he'd have been charged years ago. Trump is like a white collar mafia-boss, hard to get to, but everyone knows they are a crook.
That's been the sentiment in the NYC area for a long time. If the nonsense that led to most of his businesses failing are any indication of how he operates, it's not a bad assumption.
 
So is Trump smart by wanting to pump up this misdemeanor into a felony so that he gets more sympathy from potential voters?
The more he is accused of the greater the sympathy for him.
Is that a good strategy?
You can't not charge someone for a crime just because you're afraid of how his friends might react.
 
Not the last years, the last year. But I just checked and I may be wrong, or as Bush might put it, misremembered. One chart show’s growth a few months after Obama came into office. So one could argue that we should give credit to him instead of Trump. My larger points are that it is hard to credit Obama-Trump-Biden for relatively short economic changes. But that is the reality or credit/blame politicians live with. What they do that is more measurable IMHO, is support policies that have longer term positive or negative effects.


I seem to recall Obama was handed a messy and horrific bank crisis. He seemed to do OK with it, at least prevented what the Republicans did in 1929!

Your charts mean doodle. I no longer believe anything any right wing American says about anything. After Donald Trump you could bring Mother Mary back to life and I wouldn't buy it. You ****ed the pooch.

Here are the facts:

George W. Bush is a war criminal. The existence of "weapons of mass destruction" was a "Santa Claus" story and he knew as a lie. He belongs in prison in Iran. He also approved of "advanced interrogation techniques", known to the world courts as "torture"! There is little difference between him and Pinochet.

When he is in prison for life, we we can have a discussion about the economy under various presidents who didn't need a war to make things look better.
 
First, this has nothing to do with the subject of the thread (Trump's indictment.)

Second, while you focus on this one example, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida is going dystopian, firing professors throughout Florida campuses and installing his own right-wing ideologues on the boards of colleges to indoctrinate conservative thought, while white washing discussions of race, gender and inequality. Fortunately, the federal courts are blocking some of the Gov's fascism.
Is has everything to do with giving Progressives a solid example of WOKE behavior in of our more prestigious universities.
That's why I posted this excellent example of a WOKE school.
And it was you who brought up DeSantis and his crusade against WOKE Progressivism, not me.
 
Prosecutors appear likely to argue the Trump Organization illegally reimbursed Cohen the $130,000 through identifying the payment as legal expenses—as falsifying business records is a misdemeanor offense in New York.

They may also argue the payment was a felony violation of campaign finance law since the cash to allegedly kill the story may have functioned as an illegal donation to help the Trump campaign, though that is the subject of legal debate.




This is why Trump has been touting his lead in the polls, on his Twitter clone; so that he can say this is all political to stop his momentum, imo.

If he is charged in all jurisdictions, how long do you imagine the proccess would take?
Violations of campaign finance law has a 5 year statute of limitations so I don't see how that could be the charge.
 
You can't not charge someone for a crime just because you're afraid of how his friends might react.
Good point. But what is he being accused of? Giving hush money to a porn star? Should that put him in jail?
Even if he loses in court, what difference would that make to his supporters?
 
I

And to think, these are LAW students this place is supposed to be turning out....God help us.
My reaction exactly, Parents spend hundreds of thousands in tuition for their kid to go to Stanford Law School and this is what they see.
 
So, progress on this front is being made. Once again, our victim in chief is saying "woe is me" rather than the statesman approach of taking this like a man, telling his people he "has got this", just go home and justice will prevail.

This idea of telling people to take to the streets shows he learned nothing by Jan 6 and is more than happy to cheer on another insurrection. He clearly has no love for America. This man has no business anywhere near the white house.

Of course this is Trump revealing this story. It would be custom for the Manhattan DA's office to "negotiate his surrender", so he would have indication this was coming.

Trump is cooking his own goose here:

In an echo of Trump’s appeals to supporters in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, he called Saturday for action, writing: “Protest, take our nation back.”
His team said after Trump’s post that it had not received any notifications from prosecutors.

By stoking 1/6 type violence, Trump is only going to throw away his national electability.

I'm now beginning to wonder how serious he is about prevailing, versus hustling his minions.
 
So is Trump smart by wanting to pump up this misdemeanor into a felony so that he gets more sympathy from potential voters?
The more he is accused of the greater the sympathy for him.
Is that a good strategy?
I don’t think the level of charge is up to the defendant.
 
Is has everything to do with giving Progressives a solid example of WOKE behavior in of our more prestigious universities.
That's why I posted this excellent example of a WOKE school.
And it was you who brought up DeSantis and his crusade against WOKE Progressivism, not me.
WOKE (noun) while it was meant to mean means "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination," it's been bastardized by the right-wing to mean anything liberals do that conservatives don't like. Thus, raising taxes on the rich, is now woke.

So, when DeSantis bans books and fires liberal professors, isn't be engaging in what the right calls cancel culture?
 
Can you think of a scenario in which he wouldn't claim it was politically motivated? These aren't things I'm really concerned with.
What are you concerned with?
 
So is Trump smart by wanting to pump up this misdemeanor into a felony so that he gets more sympathy from potential voters?
The more he is accused of the greater the sympathy for him.
Is that a good strategy?
Nah...
He's going to put pressure on the GQP. If they don't support him unconditionally, he'll run independent.
 
Trump is cooking his own goose here:




By stoking 1/6 type violence, Trump is only going to throw away his national electability.
He has a long way to go to lose the MAGA base. I have no idea what the hard numbers are, I think we are about to find out.

I'm now beginning to wonder how serious he is about prevailing, versus hustling his minions.
 
So, progress on this front is being made. Once again, our victim in chief is saying "woe is me" rather than the statesman approach of taking this like a man, telling his people he "has got this", just go home and justice will prevail.

This idea of telling people to take to the streets shows he learned nothing by Jan 6 and is more than happy to cheer on another insurrection. He clearly has no love for America. This man has no business anywhere near the white house.

Of course this is Trump revealing this story. It would be custom for the Manhattan DA's office to "negotiate his surrender", so he would have indication this was coming.
He is calling for protests. What does he expect that means? He is a clear and present danger to America.

When he dies I wonder if the other Presidents will attend his funeral?
 
Back
Top Bottom