US Politics Thread

[tented]

I wonder what you mean by "cultural marxism." Serious question, because it's kind of a controversial phrase. Also, do you see it so much a by-product of anti-Trump sentiment that ridding ourselves of him in the political realm could eliminate it? Just asking for clarification, not being combative.

You know, I’ve been thinking: how many people who cite Marx, or use the words “Marxist” or “Marxism” have ever actually read him? There’s the Communist Manifesto, which he cowrote with Engels of course, but Marx’s main work — Das Kapital — is nearly 3,000 pages. (I checked the 3-volume edition on Amazon.)

I’m willing to bet less than 1% of the population has ever read him. Even a single page. Yet I can’t think of anyone else who is cited so often, yet virtually never read.

[I know your post was directed to @Federberg but I wanted to add this thought.]

 

[Moxie]

I think she is was just covering the bases probably was told by the judge who will be presiding over the case due to historical activities of the defendant.

She IS the judge who will be presiding over the case. IMO, it was a pointed remark. The Don acts like a mafia boss, and she was warning him the way Mafia bosses get warned. I have a hard time imagining that every defendant who comes before her is a likely candidate for jury tampering. I was actually a juror on a Mafia case in NYC. (Which we didn't know until after, of course.) But we were sequestered, and the main concern was jury-tampering. (Which we sort of understood at the time.) They had guards all over us. This judge knows that Trump is a loose-cannon, and she can look at his criminal record of pending indictments. She did him a favor warning him specifically, if you ask me. But she also put it on record.

 

[the AntiPusher]

She IS the judge who will be presiding over the case. IMO, it was a pointed remark. The Don acts like a mafia boss, and she was warning him the way Mafia bosses get warned. I have a hard time imagining that every defendant who comes before her is a likely candidate for jury tampering. I was actually a juror on a Mafia case in NYC. (Which we didn't know until after, of course.) But we were sequestered, and the main concern was jury-tampering. (Which we sort of understood at the time.) They had guards all over us. This judge knows that Trump is a loose-cannon, and she can look at his criminal record of pending indictments. She did him a favor warning him specifically, if you ask me. But she also put it on record.

No no Judge Tonia Cutchin wasn't at the court when Trump was being arrested

 

[Moxie]

No no Judge Tonia Cutchin wasn't at the court when Trump was being arrested

So sorry! I think you're right. The magistrate judge he saw yesterday was Moxila Upadhyaya, and the judge expected to preside over the case is Tanya Chutkan. Good catch. So maybe she is just covering the bases for the other judge.

 

[Kieran]

That’s highly irregular for a judge to say something like that to a defendant. It’s as if she’s already found him guilty. I’d be surprised if she isn’t removed from the trial..

 

[tented]

That’s highly irregular for a judge to say something like that to a defendant. It’s as if she’s already found him guilty. I’d be surprised if she isn’t removed from the trial..

This wasn’t the first time a judge has felt compelled to give Trump this warning.

 

[Kieran]

This wasn’t the first time a judge has felt compelled to give Trump this warning.

I wasn’t aware of that but you know that Trump’s defence will be that this is a political show trial designed to affect his presidential bid, and that the judges and law enforcement are doing the Democrat party bidding?

He’s entitled to the presumption of innocence going into the trial - and the judge saying this already shows bias. She has judged him before the trial, where she would have been wiser - and more proper as a judge - to hold fire on that statement..

 

[tented]

I wasn’t aware of that but you know that Trump’s defence will be that this is a political show trial designed to affect his presidential bid, and that the judges and law enforcement are doing the Democrat party bidding?

He’s entitled to the presumption of innocence going into the trial - and the judge saying this already shows bias. She has judged him before the trial, where she would have been wiser - and more proper as a judge - to hold fire on that statement..

This was a routine warning during a Federal court hearing. There was nothing unusual about it. It’s only making news because it was Trump. I would have received the same instructions from the Judge.

 

[Kieran]

This was a routine warning during a Federal court hearing. There was nothing unusual about it. It’s only making news because it was Trump. I would have received the same instructions from the Judge.

In that article it says it’s routine to be told ‘not to discuss the case with any witnesses without lawyers present.’ But the judge also told him not to commit crimes.

“I have never heard that”: Experts stunned after judge “admonished” Trump not to commit any crimes​

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who served on special counsel Bob Mueller's team, told MSNBC that the order was "unusual."

"The standard condition that a judge usually emphasizes to a defendant is that they have to show up at each court appearance. That is the most important thing. That is what bail is for — so that you'll show up in court," he said. "But I heard that the standard condition and most important thing today is 'do not commit a crime'' followed up by 'do not tamper with a juror.' My first reaction was, I was a prosecutor for 21 years and I was a defense lawyer for five years, and I've never heard that."

Trump will make this part of his defence. Better for the justice system to narrow his options to argue, not expand them…

 

[tented]

In that article it says it’s routine to be told ‘not to discuss the case with any witnesses without lawyers present.’

I thought you were referring to the part about not discussing the case with any witnesses.

 

[Moxie]

That’s highly irregular for a judge to say something like that to a defendant. It’s as if she’s already found him guilty. I’d be surprised if she isn’t removed from the trial..

As AP pointed out, she's not the trial judge. She's the one that oversaw the hearing on Thursday. I don't see how it implies that she thinks he's guilty. In the course of telling him that he may not commit a crime while he's free (on bail?,) she reminded him that it is a crime to tamper with jurors/witnesses. To me, it implies that she suspects he needs reminding, which I think he does. He took to Truth Social yesterday to issue a generally threatening remark, and now the bench is issuing a "protective order," which limits how much Trump can talk about discovery information in public. Let's face it: Trump is a bit of a loose-cannon when it comes to posting on social media. I think her warnings from the bench were warranted, and it was right to have said it out loud. One might consider it for his own benefit. Personally, I suspect his lawyers were relieved that she said it so that they don't have to.

 

[Kieran]

I don't see how it implies that she thinks he's guilty.

To me, it implies that she suspects he needs reminding, which I think he does.

I think if she feels she needs to remind him not to commit a crime then that suggests she’s judged him. Now, fortunately she’s not the trial judge but it was an unusual thing to say. It won’t affect the outcome of his trial but his defence will be alert to any institutional bias, since I suspect that their defence will basically be that the system is rigged against him..

 

[Moxie]

I wasn’t aware of that but you know that Trump’s defence will be that this is a political show trial designed to affect his presidential bid, and that the judges and law enforcement are doing the Democrat party bidding?

He’s entitled to the presumption of innocence going into the trial - and the judge saying this already shows bias. She has judged him before the trial, where she would have been wiser - and more proper as a judge - to hold fire on that statement..

As I said above, I don't think that the judge said anything that implies prejudice. I don't know what it's like in Ireland, but it's fair to note that in the US, defendant's don't get treated with a great deal of deference by judges in this country. Judges treat defendants sternly, and broker no BS. If we agree that no person is above the law, then even an ex-President doesn't deserve to be treated more deferentially in a court of law than anyone else.

As to your first point, that's going to happen, anyway, and already is, whether warranted, or not. A solid case has been made against him, with nothing stating that he doesn't have First Amendment rights. In fact, it specifically states that he has the right to state publicly that he thinks the election was stolen from him, that he thinks it was rigged, etc. What he DOESN'T have the right to do is act on his belief, in a manner designed to illegally disrupt the peaceful transition of powers, or conspire to take away the legal votes of others. That does not stop his lawyers from trying to make a case in public that Trump is being deprived of his 1st Amendment rights, (he is not,) nor keeping his loyal followers from believing the same thing. No matter what happens in this case, or the others, there is a certain percentage of the population here that will still see it as a political witch-hunt. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

If we were a 3rd world country, what happened on Jan. 6th, 2021 would have been seen as an attempted coup. Some people in this country believe that's not possible here, and choose to believe the narrative that it was a "peaceful" protest, or, at least, some version of Trump loyalists gone rogue, but to no real harm. What part Trump had in trying to disrupt the peaceful transition of powers is a big deal, if he did. What part he had in trying to find delegates to overturn the actual vote in their states is a big deal, if he did. If the law in this country turns a blind eye to it, because it seems too complicated or too political to deal with, who are we?

 

[Moxie]

I think if she feels she needs to remind him not to commit a crime then that suggests she’s judged him. Now, fortunately she’s not the trial judge but it was an unusual thing to say. It won’t affect the outcome of his trial but his defence will be alert to any institutional bias, since I suspect that their defence will basically be that the system is rigged against him..

Now, I do think that's a pro-forma thing to say, as @tented mentions above. That is a condition of his freedom. Any defendant would be reminded of that.

 

[Moxie]

I think if she feels she needs to remind him not to commit a crime then that suggests she’s judged him. Now, fortunately she’s not the trial judge but it was an unusual thing to say. It won’t affect the outcome of his trial but his defence will be alert to any institutional bias, since I suspect that their defence will basically be that the system is rigged against him..

I'm not sure what you mean by "institutional bias," here. If anything, the "institution" is inclined to be friendly to rich white guys of a certain age. (Not even to mention, if they used to be the President of the United States.) The system has never been "rigged" against Donald Trump. If you think there is any "rigging" going on, then aren't you implying "political," not "institutional" bias?

 

[Kieran]

As I said above, I don't think that the judge said anything that implies prejudice. I don't know what it's like in Ireland, but it's fair to note that in the US, defendant's don't get treated with a great deal of deference by judges in this country. Judges treat defendants sternly, and broker no BS. If we agree that no person is above the law, then even an ex-President doesn't deserve to be treated more deferentially in a court of law than anyone else.

As to your first point, that's going to happen, anyway, and already is, whether warranted, or not. A solid case has been made against him, with nothing stating that he doesn't have First Amendment rights. In fact, it specifically states that he has the right to state publicly that he thinks the election was stolen from him, that he thinks it was rigged, etc. What he DOESN'T have the right to do is act on his belief, in a manner designed to illegally disrupt the peaceful transition of powers, or conspire to take away the legal votes of others. That does not stop his lawyers from trying to make a case in public that Trump is being deprived of his 1st Amendment rights, (he is not,) nor keeping his loyal followers from believing the same thing. No matter what happens in this case, or the others, there is a certain percentage of the population here that will still see it as a political witch-hunt. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

If we were a 3rd world country, what happened on Jan. 6th, 2021 would have been seen as an attempted coup. Some people in this country believe that's not possible here, and choose to believe the narrative that it was a "peaceful" protest, or, at least, some version of Trump loyalists gone rogue, but to no real harm. What part Trump had in trying to disrupt the peaceful transition of powers is a big deal, if he did. What part he had in trying to find delegates to overturn the actual vote in their states is a big deal, if he did. If the law in this country turns a blind eye to it, because it seems too complicated or too political to deal with, who are we?

I think in your country both sides have their violent militias that do damage to your democracy. January 6th was only the most startling example of a trend. But several news sites are saying that she went further than usual in her remarks.

It will certainly be a shit show. I agree with you that no person is above the law, but a defendant in Ireland is presumed innocent until proven guilty, so the judge would never treat them more sternly than they would if they aren’t in the dock, unless the defendant is behaving in a particular way that disrupts the court, or treats the process with contempt…

 

[Kieran]

I'm not sure what you mean by "institutional bias," here. If anything, the "institution" is inclined to be friendly to rich white guys of a certain age. (Not even to mention, if they used to be the President of the United States.) The system has never been "rigged" against Donald Trump. If you think there is any "rigging" going on, then aren't you implying "political," not "institutional" bias?

With this, I’m predicting (possibly wrongly) that Trump’s team will argue that this is all basically a political show trial, and that political interference has infected the legal and justice institutions that have brought him to this.

I’m not saying that there’s rigging going on. I’m saying that will be what he will say…

 

[Moxie]

With this, I’m predicting (possibly wrongly) that Trump’s team will argue that this is all basically a political show trial, and that political interference has infected the legal and justice institutions that have brought him to this.

I’m not saying that there’s rigging going on. I’m saying that will be what he will say…

Oh, believe me, they're already saying that. It's one thing to keep crying "foul" and "politics," but it's quite another to undermine public confidence in the judicial system, which Trump has been doing, implying that the Dept. of Justice is simply an arm of Biden's office. As I said above, part of what Trump is accused of is trying to use the power and authority of the Justice Dept. So naturally, he thinks that Biden can. It's actually frightening how many people seem convinced that the Justice Dept. and the FBI are mere ciphers for the Executive. This is the real damage that they are doing.

 

[Kieran]

Oh, believe me, they're already saying that. It's one thing to keep crying "foul" and "politics," but it's quite another to undermine public confidence in the judicial system, which Trump has been doing, implying that the Dept. of Justice is simply an arm of Biden's office. As I said above, part of what Trump is accused of is trying to use the power and authority of the Justice Dept. So naturally, he thinks that Biden can. It's actually frightening how many people seem convinced that the Justice Dept. and the FBI are mere ciphers for the Executive. This is the real damage that they are doing.

That’s true. It’s natural that people who tend to act suspiciously will think that everyone else is like them. His problems are manifold, but self-awareness isn’t one of them..

 

[Moxie]

That’s true. It’s natural that people who tend to act suspiciously will think that everyone else is like them. His problems are manifold, but self-awareness isn’t one of them..

Which is why a judge might think she should caution him. The man has no governor.