Glenn, I just subscribed and paid specifically to make this point. So, it isn’t a point strongly against you at all, although I am slightly frustrated.
Mr. Cohen on Israel and students on these campuses was incredibly frustrating. All of his comments were filled with just falsehoods, false moralizing, and the insistence on tenuous motives with no evidence. I know you are critical of Israel too; however, when these things are said in real time I am not sure why you don’t challenge them. In regards to contentious social matters in the US, you will frequently challenge guests on points even when you generally agree with them just to play devils advocate.
Examples,
1. “The amount of lives lost in the conduct of this war”. Compared to what? Yes, it is more death than anyone ever wants to see. But, specifically in regards to protests the “compared to what?” is an enormous question and needs to be answered. Because for the region, it’s certainly not “exorbitant” or at all an outlier or at all unique, unless you declare like any death figure above let’s say 10k exorbitant, which is perfectly fair as an objective measure of “that’s a ton of death”; however, again misleading when talking about what is inspiring these protests and incomplete.
2. “Especially the amount of innocent lives”. Same caveats as above, then yes of course it is a tragedy. But again, “compared to what?” is a valid and NECESSARY question. Compared to modern urban warfare? Certainly not, that is just false. On a ratio basis? No. False. As gross figures to modern conflicts? No. False. As against the demographics of the surrounding society? No. False. Again, it is only true in a cosmic sense of any time lots of people die it is a terrible thing. And again YES of course it is a terrible thing. But, when discussing protests again entirely insufficient.
3. “No defined endpoint or plausible strategy”. End point is Hamas is eradicated as a governing structure. Plausible strategy is killing them until they hold no power in the region. This has been communicated literally constantly since Oct 7. The rebuttal to it takes the form of “But Hamas is an idea”. Which is as accurate as it is a non sequitur and immaterial. The end point is not until everyone in Gaza with dislike of Israel is gone. It’s not even until everyone who SUPPORTS Hamas is gone. It’s until the people who make up the governing force and structural force of Hamas are gone. The people firing rockets, stealing aid, building tunnels, building weapons, governing, communing with foreign allies of theirs, etc. The people who run Hamas are gone. Ridding Gaza of them is not only not at all implausible, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption and predictable.
4. “People experiencing horror, rightly, and sensing it has to stop”. Again, separate of all reality, perfectly reasonable. It is perfectly reasonable to see death and destruction to this degree and find horror in it. It is horrible. Again, does absolutely zero to explain the protests. Because the protests aren’t divorced from reality. They take place in the context of the world we’re living in.
5. “When you ask how, I didn’t get us into this, this is just not within the bounds of acceptability”. US is not “into this” unless you’re saying they provide them aid and funding, which if that is the standard of any of these kids in reality, they’re going to have a truly eye opening experience once someone shows them the extent of their own ignorance. To shirking the “how”, the analogy falls apart even more. Vietnam the protests were literally to say “I am not going” as they were drafting people. The protest and the how are interlinked. Not providing a “how” to a foreign conflict you’re protesting is the admission you’re doing nothing more than screaming at the sky as the best of reads, and at the worst of reads you could insinuate they have evil intent. “Not within the bounds of acceptability” as all the above point out, “compared to what?”. That again is not only a reasonable question, it is a NECESSARY question. What IS acceptable?
All of this to say, Cohen is clearly and explicitly a supporter of these protests while also offering protestors all the proper motives that make their *cause* reasonable, rational and moral. But, at the very slightest of inspection and digging beyond the patina of morality, the entire structure falls apart. It leaves you with solely the conclusions, these students are incredibly, incredibly, incredibly, mind boggling ignorant. Or, there is something else going on here that Cohen is not addressing that either he himself is ignorant to, or is choosing not to acknowledge.
To support pretty much all 1 through 5 of these points as it relates to the Israel Gaza conflict, you have to place it within the world. Placing it within the world you immediately raise questions.
Where are the protests over Syria? Maybe 1M killed. 12M displaced. Hundreds of thousands of women and children killed. Truly indiscriminate bombing. Entire cities flattened. Input of many foreign nations both in weapons and funding and direct assistance. A dictatorial regime. Has been ongoing for 13 years. Where are the protests?
Where are the protests over Yemen? Maybe 400,000 killed. 25M displaced. Famine and starvation actually widespread killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians. (Not doubting there is famine in Gaza. I’m pointing to 10ks dead from famine and asking where is the comparable level in Gaza). Indiscriminate bombing. Violence caused by an authoritarian terrorist group most civilians don’t support. I put of many foreign countries in funding, weapons supply and direct action. Has been going on for a decade. Where are the protests?
Where are the protests over Uyghurs treatment in China? 11.5M people as part of an ethnic minority forced into camps. Do not have full rights. Have been killed indiscriminately with no legal action against perpetrators. Many accusations and pretty strong evidence of rape. Some evidence of forced sterilizations. Has been going on for a decade. Has been described as a genocide for years. Where are the protests?
Congo, Afghanistan, Mali, Myanmar? Why does seemingly no one know or protest about any of these conflicts? The suffering is the same or more. The “injustice” by all the standards set out by Cohen the same or more. Why do they get zero attention?
More specific to the region, why is Israel this great horrible force and not Jordan? Jordan was established as a state from the Balfour Declarion, almost identical to Israel. The leadership of Jordan is from the Hashemite dynasty. They’re not “native” to Jordan by literally anyone’s definition. Jordan also expelled Palestinians from their country, many of the people who now make up the West Bank. They also currently will not accept any palestinians from West Bank or Gaza into their country. Why is no one protesting Jordan? Or at least mentioning their culpability?
Why is no one mentioning Egypt? Egypt shares a border with Gaza. They also will not accept refugees, they have provided zero or a fraction of the aid as Israel or the US, and continue to strengthen the walls and barriers of their border with Gaza. Why is no one protesting Egypt? Or at least mentioning their culpability?
I am not one that is going to say these students are antisemitic. What I will say is they’re acting in a practical manner indistinguishable from antisemitism. And I am not sure if the distinction between their beliefs and their resulting actions from their beliefs is an important distinction. Further and to the point, why don’t you challenge your guests on this? To anyone who knows anything about global conflict, anything about global suffering, anything about the history of the area, anything about this specific conflict, and anything about the specifics of modern warfare, they can still say “what is happening in Gaza is horrific!!”, but preemptively if you were to judge all people and countries equal in standing and only judge conflicts if you asked “would this conflict be expected to produce an exceptional amount of outrage compared to everything else?” they would certainly say no.
I don’t think Cohen wants to acknowledge 1. How ignorant these kids are and 2. How much they’re being swayed by a more engrained ideology at these universities. An ideology where an Israeli killing a Palestinian is immediately seen as worse than a Congolese killing a Rwandan. An ideology that sees a Palestinian killing a Israeli as more justified. An ideology that looks for oppressor and oppressed but cuts its search criteria off at racial lines. An ideology that solely sees a problem with Israel being formed and the movement of people that entailed. But simultaneously has nothing to say about the concurrent expulsions from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, etc. An ideology that will call one party an “ethno state” that has a MAJORITY of individuals they perceive as white (when they’re not) and a significant minority (20%+) of other citizens with full rights, and will have no such terms of opprobrium for the party that is legitimately 99% one ethnicity and 99% one religion and vows publicly to not allow equal rights for minorities if they were given power.
You may keep thinking I am describing antisemitism, or you may think I’m weighting it to walk a reader to the conclusion of antisemitism, or insinuating otherwise it is pure antisemitism. But, as I said before. I do not think it is antisemitism, I just think it functions in a practical manner the exact same way, and I am not sure the distinction between the beliefs and the actions are important.
I should comment on Israeli military response to Hamas attack, while I am still Muslim. (If my fellow Muslims don’t get their act together- I may defect like Ayan Hirsi Ali). When I converted to Islam, I didn’t stop being pro-Israel, nor pro-Jewish. I want to ask the reader, what do you think China would do if neighboring North Korea launched the same Hamas-styled attack into China? Within 24 hours, China would use bombs and bullets to erase the country. Then, news media would blame North Korea for self-inflicted harm. And unless Israel takes efforts to locate all hostages in Gazan tunnels- then Israelis will be sitting ducks as potential hostage victims.
Hamas has built tunnels only under civilian areas. While all civilians could fit inside the tunnels, none are allowed in.
[Time 37:00]; Guest Joshua Cohen commenting on Loury at Palm Beach Synagog not mentioning the anticipated high death counts for Gaza civilians during Israeli invasion; I disagree with Cohen’s claim that part of Palm Beach audience therefore thinks that Loury agrees with Israeli military into Gaza strategy. Not necessarily. If I were in audience- and I watched entire YouTube video, I would think that Loury’s position is unknown.
Also, Loury was on a time-budget at Palm Beach and therefore forced to pick and choose what to say. Loury’s talk was focused on Black-Jewish relations in USA. I ask that Loury give lessons on focus to debaters of 2024 May FreePress Israel-Palestine debate mediated by triggernometry host.
This guy does a better job than me explaining what went wrong with the Kafka sham political trial in NY. I was never a Trump fan until multiple nasty insults, denigration, threats, and more came my way for criticizing ... well ... almost anything about Biden. Not even electronically. In person in my home town. I guess I was driven to drink in a sense.
"Whether you love, hate or merely tolerate Donald Trump, you should care about due process, which is fundamental to the rule of law. New York’s trial of Mr. Trump violated basic due-process principles.
“No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge,” the Supreme Court stated in Cole v. Arkansas (1948), “and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, [is] among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal.” In in re Winship (1970), the justices affirmed that “the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” These three due-process precepts—notice, meaningful opportunity to defend, and proof of all elements—were absent in Mr. Trump’s trial.
The state offense with which Mr. Trump was indicted, “falsifying business records,” requires proof of an “intent to defraud.” To elevate this misdemeanor to a felony, the statute requires proof of “intent to commit another crime.” In People v. Bloomfield (2006), the state’s highest court observed that “intent to commit another crime” is an indispensable element of the felony offense.
New York courts have concluded that the accused need not be convicted of the other crime since an “intent to commit” it is sufficient to satisfy the statute. But because that intent is, in the words of Winship, “a fact necessary to constitute the crime,” it is an element of felony falsification. Due process requires that the defendant receive timely notice of the other crime he allegedly intended to commit. It also requires that he have opportunity to defend against that accusation and that prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt his intent to commit it.
Mr. Trump’s indictment didn’t specify the other crime he allegedly intended to commit. Prosecutors didn’t do so during the trial either. Only after the evidentiary phase of the trial did Judge Juan Merchan reveal that the other crime was Section 17-152 of New York’s election law, which makes it a misdemeanor to engage in a conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”
To recap, the prosecution involved (1) a misdemeanor elevated to a felony based on an “intent to commit another crime,” (2) an indictment and trial that failed to specify, or present evidence establishing, another crime the defendant intended to commit, and (3) a jury instruction that the other crime was one that necessitated further proof of “unlawful means.” It’s a Russian-nesting-doll theory of criminality: The charged crime hinged on the intent to commit another, unspecified crime, which in turn hinged on the actual commission of yet another unspecified offense.
To make matters worse, Judge Merchan instructed the jury: “Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.”
Due process demands that felony verdicts be unanimous, but in Schad v. Arizona (1991), a murder case, the high court indicated that there need not be unanimity regarding the means by which a crime is committed. But a plurality opinion by Justice David Souter cautioned that if the available means of committing a crime are so capacious that the accused is not “in a position to understand with some specificity the legal basis of the charge against him,” due process will be violated. “Nothing in our history suggests that the Due Process Clause would permit a State to convict anyone under a charge of ‘Crime’ so generic that any combination of jury findings of embezzlement, reckless driving, murder, burglary, tax evasion, or littering, for example, would suffice for conviction,” Justice Souter wrote.
Justice Antonin Scalia concurred, observing that “one can conceive of novel ‘umbrella’ crimes (a felony consisting of either robbery or failure to file a tax return) where permitting a 6-to-6 verdict would seem contrary to due process.” Four dissenting justices argued that the In re Winship precedent requires unanimity regarding all elements of a crime, including the means by which it’s committed.
All nine justices in Schad, then, believed unanimity is required to convict when the means by which a crime can be committed are so broad that the accused doesn’t receive fair notice of the basis of the charge. New York’s election law requires that the violation occur “by unlawful means,” so any “unlawful” act—including, in Scalia’s example, either robbery of failure to file a tax return—can qualify. That’s clearly overbroad. Thus, Judge Merchan’s instruction that the jury “need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were” was unconstitutional.
That isn’t all. Judge Merchan hand-selected three laws—federal election law, falsification of “other” business records and “violation of tax laws”—as the “unlawful means” by which state election law was violated. Mr. Trump received no notice of any of these offenses, and the prosecutor briefly alluded only to federal election law, during the trial. Mr. Trump tried to call former Federal Election Commission Chairman Brad Smith to explain why this law wasn’t violated, but Judge Merchan ruled Mr. Smith couldn’t testify on whether Mr. Trump’s conduct “does or does not constitute a violation” of federal election law, denying him a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Judge Merchan’s second “unlawful” means, falsification of other business records, is circular: A misdemeanor becomes a felony if one falsifies business records by falsifying business records. Further, the prosecution never alleged or provided evidence that Mr. Trump falsified “other” business records. The prosecutors likewise neither alleged nor offered evidence that Mr. Trump had violated tax laws, Judge Merchan’s third predicate.
Mr. Trump, like all criminal defendants, was entitled to due process. The Constitution demands that higher courts throw out the verdict against him. That takes time, however, and is unlikely to occur before the election. That unfortunate reality will widen America’s political divide and fuel the suspicion that Mr. Trump’s prosecution wasn’t about enforcing the law but wounding a presidential candidate for the benefit of his opponent."
Glenn. That man is so biased he is really unworthy of having representation on this forum. I’ll leave the Trump stuff to others and raise one point regarding his comments re: Israel and student protests on campus. He claimed the protests were an understandable reaction to the aggressive response of the Israeli military in Gaza. He seems to have forgotten what happened on campus in the immediate aftermath of 10/7. Israel had not made any move yet but protesters began their actions, including intimidation tactics of non-Israeli Jewish students and professors. This man needs to correct the record on your site, without delay. This is really a disgrace!
Yemen, a place where there had been a thriving Jewish community for many centuries, and, from which, the people decided to ethnically cleanse the Jews. The Jews who survived ended up in Israel, now still being pursued for death by the Yemeni Houthi’s. Where is the protest about that?
The question of if a less public or less reviled individual would've gotten convicted of these same charges seems like the key question. I wonder if any potential Glenn show guests could make a strong case either way.
It doesn't seem flippant to me. If I'm donating to a campaign, and it turns out the money is being used to keep information from me, I'd like for them to get in trouble.
Hunter Biden's gun charges are probably politically motivated too, but buying illegal guns while on drugs also seems like a legit charge and I like to see him get in trouble for it.
I'm trying to take the political motivation out of the equation and just consider the merits of the charge.
If Hunter or Trump were prosecuted for something like jaywalking or going 1mph over the speed limit, I think (hope) almost anyone would say that's politically motivated BS.
If Hunter or Trump was caught on film murdering someone in cold blood, I think (hope) almost anyone would say they should be prosecuted.
My uneducated sense is that both Trump and Biden's crimes are closer to the latter, but I'd love for a real lawyer, someone who has experience deciding which cases to prosecute and which to let go, to weigh in.
The notion that Donald Trump poses a unique threat to the American polity is a vastly overstated thesis in my opinion. There are far broader structural issues at play that transcend the charismatic demagoguery of Trump and are far more deleterious to the well-being of the republic.
The modern-day reincarnation of wokeness post-2013 and the ensuing flames of the culture wars have almost certainly left America worse off as a result. As our institutions increasingly abandon meritocracy and our elected politicians shirk their duty to keep Americans safe from crime, quality of life has steadily eroded in this country, particularly in large cities, and America has steadily declined in competitiveness relative to peer nations.
Likewise, as the recent war in Gaza has laid bare, the American political class has essentially been co-opted by big money and works for the interests of its donors rather than for the well-being of the American people. Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks persuasively lays out the case for this in his recent book Justice is Coming, highlighting how on a number of important issues such as background checks for gun sales, the American political class is completely out of touch with the views of the American people due to the corrupting influence of lobbyist groups such as the NRA and others. Our politicians have basically become whores for the interests of big corporations and foreign governments rather than working to advance the well-being of the constituents they ostensibly represent. The recent attempt by 12 Republican US Senators to intimidate the head of the ICC Karim Khan against pursuing warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant along with senior leaders of Hamas was dismaying to say the least.
Trump faced numerous criticisms over his America-first economic and foreign policies that supposedly ran contrary to the established tenets of the neoliberal order. Yet not only has the Biden administration kept in place many of the Trump era tariffs and sanctions, they've also expanded them significantly in many respects. Back in October 2022, the Biden administration unilaterally levied unprecedented semiconductor sanctions against China while attempting to coerce allied nations such as Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea and Taiwan into following suit. Recently Biden also increased tariffs on Chinese EVs from 25% to 100%, partly in deference to the UAW as a means of shoring up his political support prior to the November elections, but also in large part due to the increasingly protectionist bent of the American political class vis-a-vis China.
As Grep Ip of the WSJ notes, America has increasingly come to mirror China in its political and economic orientation, particularly in its newfound penchant for subjugating economic interests to the arbitrarily defined interests of national security. Anyone who believes in the importance of free speech should have been deeply concerned by the recent push in the House and the Senate to ban TikTok and by Biden subsequently signing off on this ban that was packaged as part of a set of separate House bills providing foreign aid to Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel. Ironically, despite attempting to ban TikTok by executive fiat back in 2020 only to be thwarted by the courts, Trump has now come out against such a move. Some have cynically noted that this was in large part due to the financial influence of Republican mega-donor Jeffrey Yass, who's part owner of the company that merged with Trump's media company which owns Truth Social.
America's shift away from the neoliberal principles it's embraced for decades is part of a broader structural trend that transcends the America first principles of someone like Donald Trump, as evidenced by the fact that the aforementioned events of recent years have occurred entirely under the Biden administration. The American political class's unconditional support for Israel and its assault upon global semiconductor and EV supply chains has increasingly resulted in America becoming isolated from the rest of the world. But none of this is due to the unique threat that Trump supposedly poses.
Donald Trump is certainly someone who routinely spouts crude and provocative rhetoric and treats the conventional norms of civility with utter contempt. Yet this anti-establishment streak is precisely why so many in this country embrace him, myself included. In my opinion, to believe that Trump somehow poses a unique threat to the republic when America is beset by a far broader set of structural issues in the body politic is to truly miss the forest for the trees.
I'll conclude Glenn by referencing your observation about the reactions you've gotten in the comments section of this Substack to some of your commentary. A big part of the reason why I unsubscribed from Bari Weiss's site The Free Press was that although much of the reporting and commentary on the culture wars was quite good, the complete opposite was true when it came to geopolitics. There was an unbridled America is the city on the hill and the defender of the rules based international order chest thumping that in my opinion bordered on the delusional.
Personally, I've become disillusioned by the so-called heterodox community in large part because apart from the culture wars, so much of its opinion on other matters such as Israel or China is decidedly establishment and non-contrarian. I'm not suggesting that everyone needs to echo the talking points of people like John Mearsheimer, but it's obvious that we've been consumed by a more than 3 decade post-End of History hangover in this country.
The republic is in serious trouble and not only for all the reasons I've articulated above. America has increasingly become drunk on its own ideological delusions and isolated from the greater trends of the 21st century. Historically European countries were far more open to other civilizations and cultures than vice versa. Sadly, the situation seems to have reversed. The average American today knows far less about China than does the average Chinese about America, a fact emphasized in Kishore Mahbubani's recent book Has China Won. Prior to the pandemic in 2020, there were roughly 370,000 Chinese students studying in the US compared to around 12,000 American students studying in China. On a per capita basis there were about 7.2 times as many Chinese studying in the United States as the other way around. People in China have gained far more exposure to the history and culture of America in recent decades than the reverse.
In light of the facts, to think that the national discourse is entirely fixated on Donald Trump as some sort of unique evil and the source of all our problems is truly mind-boggling. What Americans need more than ever is a modern-day Fukuzawa Yukichi, someone with the intellectual integrity and humility to point us towards the shifting winds of 21st century civilization. I imagine that such a person would be much like yourself in temperament and knowledge, Glenn.
"In light of the facts, to think that the national discourse is entirely fixated on Donald Trump as some sort of unique evil and the source of all our problems is truly mind-boggling."
I think this partly gets wrong the focus on Trump.
First of all, Trump is sui generis. His greatest talent is to continually feed a media cycle eager to promulgate him. A big part of why the media cycle is fixated on him is because that's just how it works from him.
Second, he is, legitimately, a unique threat, in the sense that 45 men have held the office of the Presidency and exactly one of them - him - has sought to overstay his welcome there via deceit and violence. That he's remained electorally viable following that may say as much about his base as about him, but his re-election would be a validation of his desire to end a system that, all things considered, has served us well for 235 years. It's never been perfect here, we have always been beset by major problems including a Civil War among other things. But, right or wrong, there isn't another country whose legacy I would trade for the US's. Anyway, to dismiss Trump as a threat is to take our country and the system of government that has served us for those 235 years for granted.
Third, is he "the source of all our problems?" No, clearly not. We have had major problems throughout our history, and if the Trump era ends with the republic intact we will have major proalems throughout the rest of our history, too. It is just in the nature of things. But he is a more immediate threat than anything else, and he is a threat to the system that has enabled us to get this far, which makes him existential. He threatens our ability to work through and eventually solve our problems, something that we have been ale to do for 235 years - albeit sometimes very messily - up to now. There is not a problem we have today that Trump's influence helps us to solve.
The thesis that Trump is a threat to the republic is vastly overblown. It's based mostly on the fact that Trump is a provocateur who engages in crude and offensive rhetoric and someone who threw an extended tantrum post the 2020 election culminating in the events of January 6th.
Like Glenn I was also dismayed by what occurred on Jan 6th. A smooth and orderly transition has been the hallmark of American democracy for over 200 years and the transition from Trump to Biden was anything but smooth. Furthermore, Trump's lies about the election being stolen certainly played a role in undermining the legitimacy of the democratic system in the eyes of many Americans. Personally, I was stunned to learn that polling suggests that as many as 40% of Americans don't believe that Biden was legitimately elected in 2020. Candidly, had the Senate voted to impeach Trump after Jan 6th for his behavior I probably would've been fine with that. I'm fairly certain though that had that occurred, we wouldn't have seen any of the four criminal cases that have been brought against him over the past year. In my opinion, these were ultimately a reaction to the realization that Trump had resurrected himself politically post January 6th.
All that being said, I love me some Donald Trump. Trump is the ultimate anti-establishment contrarian and a total badass motherfucker who doesn't give a shit what anyone else thinks. You have to admire and respect that in a politician, especially given the fact that our mainstream politicians are basically whores for big corporations and foreign governments. Like Glenn, I derived a certain sense of joy almost from seeing Trump needle the establishment, both left and right. A big part of me is definitely happy to see that he's back in the game for 2024 and ready to upset the balance of the universe once again, my qualms about January 6th aside.
Much of Trump's negative aura results from the fact that his rhetoric oftentimes overshadows his actions. Trump was routinely derided as an America first president who upended the neoliberal world order and America's established alliances in favor of narrow self-interest. Yet as I noted above, the Biden administration has not only continued many of Trump's policies, but in the case of China also expanded upon them. The breakdown of America's adherence to its professed belief in the primacy of neoliberalism is part of a much broader structural reorientation in response to the changing geopolitical currents of the 21st century, a phenomenon which vastly transcends Trump.
Maybe I'm naive, but I believe that our institutions will ultimately hold against the excesses of Donald Trump. What I'm far less certain about is whether or not the deep structural flaws of the American body politic can survive the shifting winds of 21st century civilization. If you ask me, things like America's unconditional support of Israel to the point of openly threatening the lead prosecutor of the ICC or the American assault upon global semiconductor and EV supply chains are far more deleterious towards the global good than anything Trump has ever done personally, such as having his former lawyer Michael Cohen pay $130,000 in hush money to a pornstar.
Trump may have eroded trust in the legitimacy of American democracy, but at this point I'm too cynical to believe that the republic is in fact all that legitimate to begin with. The notion of America as the city on the hill and the defender of the rules-based international order is probably one of the preeminent delusions of the 21st century.
"The thesis that Trump is a threat to the republic is vastly overblown. It's based mostly on the fact that Trump is a provocateur who engages in crude and offensive rhetoric and someone who threw an extended tantrum post the 2020 election culminating in the events of January 6th."
What is unique about Trump is that he tried to overturn a fair and legitimate election and still claims, despite all evidence to the contrary and no evidence in favor, that the election was "stolen". It was far more than a "tantrum". No other issue comes close in terms of its effect on the rule of law and the US remaining a constitutional democracy. Even if he were perfectly reasonable and correct on all other issues, failing to accept the result of a legitimate election would still disqualify him.
I'm assuming you;re studiously avoiding knowing all the ways in which that election was irregular and very suspicious. And all the information that has come out since. Can anyone really believe that Biden got more votes than Obama, and that it was simple, innocent coincidence that 5 swing states stopped the vote count while Trump was ahead, and miraculously found more votes? Have you ignored the videos of suitcases being taken in to polling places and cardboard attached to windows to stop observers from seeing what was going on? Not aware that ballots were sent to addresses, not voters, and were harvested?
Literally none of the things you listed happened. Or mattered. Either they didn't happen at all, or they were absurdly misinterpreted. Anyone who has knowledge of how elections work (I'm an election worker and work in ballot handling) knows that you can't just bring in suitcases of ballots into an election site and have them counted. There are strict checks to make sure that every ballot counted came from a registered eligible voter. The five states you mention did not stop counting ballots and also passed post-election audits (which you should learn about!) There's no reason why Biden couldn't get more votes than Obama. There are tons of variables between elections that affect total turnout. There were, like, 80 cases filed around the country about supposed fraud, many handled by Trump-appointed judges and not one of them turned out to report a real fraud. I could go on, but what's the point?
What you have written shows that you don't understand how elections actually work. I suggest you go learn about it. It's fascinating! I'm sure that the elections director in your county would be happy to talk to you about the process (I know ours is happy to show people how it works).
If you want to argue this further, take it up with Bill Barr, Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, Mark Esper, John Bolton, Chris Christie, Ben Sasse, Brian Kemp, Brad Raffensperger, Ken Buck, and dozens of other Republicans who KNOW that the election was fair and have the courage to say so.
What you've written shows that you don't understand the anomalies in that election.
Even if you were correct, this election was inarguably rigged by the suppression of the TRUE Hunter Biden laptop story. The contents of that laptop implicates the corrupt " big guy"(bumbling, brain-dead Joe Biden) as well as the others in the Biden crime family in deep corruption. That the American voters were prevented from having that information tainted the election.
"The thesis that Trump is a threat to the republic is vastly overblown."
"All that being said, I love me some Donald Trump."
Well that says a lot. I mean, I cannot envision anyone who "loves them some Donald Trump" also beliving he is a threat to the republic. Unless one opposes the republic I guess.
"Trump is the ultimate anti-establishment contrarian and a total badass motherfucker who doesn't give a shit what anyone else thinks. You have to admire and respect that in a politician."
I think this is a correct statement about Trump but it is not a good thing. To the extent that Trump has WWE-ified our politics, such that it is more reality-TV ish than before (see the partisan battling in House hearings for example), I think it is awful. I don't think it makes any of our problems better.
I see Trump as both uniquely fueled by and uniquely able to drive grievance politics, and grievance politics are bad. Everyone, at least to some degree, loves to see someone they dislike get told where to shove it, but that isn't a basis for governance.
This discussion is focused on What GOOD things do you expect of Trump in his second term? He's proposing higher tariffs, which you seem not to like. You've noted that he'll adopt some positions (TikTok sale) based on what he views as his personal and political interests. We seem to disagree on grivance politics (you either view them as positive or don't see Trump as a driver of them). But what good things do you expect him to do?
"What I'm far less certain about is whether or not the deep structural flaws of the American body politic can survive the shifting winds of 21st century civilization. "
How will Trump and not hurt in that regard?
" If you ask me, things like America's unconditional support of Israel and the US assault upon global semiconductor and EV supply chains are far more deleterious towards the global good than anything Trump has ever done personally."
Trump is a critic of Biden from the pro-Israel side and from the pro-free trade etx side. The things Biden has done that you don't approve of, Trump is likely to try to do more of, or at least to claim that he will do more of.
"The idea that America is the city on the hill and the defender of the rules-based international order is probably one of the preeminent delusions of the 21st century."
I think America has made some grievous mistakes on the world stage over the past 2-3 decades. (Really throughout its entire involvement on the stage since the founding, but the past 2-3 decades have been particularly awful in terms of unforced errors. Still, the shift back towards a less safe, more protectionist, less driven by rules-based international order and more driven by the terroririal mbitions of various strongmen is... not a positive move in my view.
In my comments here, I've drawn a distinction between the culture wars and geopolitical issues such as Israel, China, trade, etc. On the big geopolitical issues, I'm mostly resigned to the fact of political inertia. Whether Biden or Trump gets reelected in 2024 matters relatively little in my opinion when it comes to issues of global geopolitics, except perhaps at the margins. For instance, whereas Trump threatened to raise tariffs on Chinese EVs to 100% from 25% should he be reelected, Biden went ahead and actually did that recently. There are deep structural flaws in the American political system that make it very difficult for America to course correct. While I don't expect much from either candidate on these matters, at least Trump holds the wildcard of anti-establishment unpredictability. Perhaps he'll surprise us and actually drain the swamp so to speak. As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Trump is unequivocally superior to Biden though when it comes to the culture war issues that are often discussed here and in other parts of the heterodox community. I feel confident in stating that the pushback against political correctness, DEI, and the erosion of the meritocracy is far more likely to bear fruit under a Trump administration as opposed to a Biden one. Remember when the courts ruled against the Biden administration's attempts to prioritize Covid loans for small businesses based on race?
My perspective is ultimately one of resigned cynicism. Trump is simply the lesser of two evils, although as I've stated he certainly possesses many attributes that I admire. Personally, I don't foresee a great future for this country barring a major structural reorientation that seems increasingly unlikely to occur. What we need now more than ever is a modern-day Fukuzawa Yukichi, someone who can decipher the shifting winds of 21st century civilization and steer the American ship towards the path of prosperity. I'm not holding my breath though.
1. I think the notable failures of neoliberalism in the 21st century tainted it and it is going to take some time before we try again. Trump is an avowed opponent of it, and Biden was in politics before it and is somewhat of an opponent of it from that perspective. And political support for neoliberalism is an an ebb - the MAGA base and the left part of the Dem base aren't in favor. I don't think that is a good thing, but it is where the country is today.
2. The notion that Trump will "drain the swamp" is laughale to me. To the extent that he has an agenda at all, I think it is mostly about personal enrichment. He wants not to *drain* the swamp but to bend it to his will.
3. I disagree that Trump is superior to Biden on culture war issues. I think culture wars by their nature cannot be won. There is push and pull, there is backlash ,and then backlash to the backlash, and then backlash to that. Trump will fuel, not tamp down, culture wars. Bringing culture wars to the forefront of our politics as Trump has helped to do has made it difficult for other important government functions to be done.
Michael you can have your own opinion and we can differ on interpretation of events but we both should agree to respect the facts. Bragg absolutely made this a campaign pledge. Here is just one example:
Is it uncouth for a politician to pledge to prosecute a crime or correct a perceived in justice?
If some drunk driver crashed through our beloved statue of Jebediah Springfield and I ran for office on putting him behind bars, would that be inappropriate?
When exactly did Trump as president—in the only elected political office he has held—prosecute his political enemies? To my knowledge, this has not occurred even once. Moreover, the Democrats started a campaign of lawfare and undermining Trump’s capacity govern from day one. These actions were not preceded by similar or comparable efforts by Trump. Indeed, while it certainly seems appropriate to question some of his policy choices—deciding, e.g., to impose tariffs on China or even some of his immigration policies—the only major transgression by Trump was not accepting the outcome of the 2020 elections. While denying the election results was certainly a questionable tactic, he did leave office after the election was officially ratified. Does he believe he really won—who knows? But Al Gore and most Democrats still believe that the 2000 election was stolen by GW Bush—this sentiment was voiced for decades. So election denial is a bipartisan sport.
If Trump goes to jail, that's BS and I'll be marching in the streets too.
Jail time doesn't seem likely though. Also I'm not sure I'd consider Bragg and Trump rivals. Biden is the rival and he is sensibly staying well clear of all this.
Biden seems to be trying to stay well clear of all this, which I respect.
We learned in this podcast there was a juror whose "sole source of news was Truth Social." Looks like a false memory from a TDS patient.
From Forbes:
'As prosecutors and Trump's defense attorneys worked to pick the 18 people selected as jurors and alternates, the potential jurors were each asked a series of questions that included an inquiry into which media they consume most often and where they get their news—one person, juror No. 2, selected Trump-owned social media platform Truth Social as a source, according to the New York Times.
'Since then, commentators on both sides of the aisle have referred to the juror as someone who uses Truth Social and have largely assumed he’s a likely pro-Trump vote on the jury (Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz tweeted "LFG Juror #2!" and the Citizen Free Press called it "Good news for Trump"), but notes from trial pool reporters suggest the juror doesn’t personally use Truth Social.
"That same juror selected one other source of news on the questionnaire—Elon Musk's X, formerly known as Twitter—and courtroom pool reporters from the third day of jury selection reported he told the court he only follows Truth Social posts “via X.”
'The juror also reported he follows Michael Cohen, the attorney at the center of Trump’s trial, on X and the "Mueller, She Wrote" podcast, an investigative podcast about Russian meddling in the 2016 election hosted by a woman who later claimed she was fired from her Veterans Affairs job because her podcast was critical of Trump.
'When asked about following Cohen on X, the man said he also follows former Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway and "other figures on both sides," according to pool reporters.'
Like them or not, jury decisions are how guilt and innoence are adjudicated in this country and should be given some degree of deference as a result of that. By no means do I think jury verdicts are inflallible, but they are what we have.
OJ's murder trial was a classic example of jury nullification. The evidence against OJ was and is overwhelming (as the civil jury that heard the Brown family's civil wrongful death suit against OJ would conclude), but the jury said "eff it" and acquitted him anyway. Depending on who you talk to and what the context is, you will get different opinions on jury nullification, but it is a thing that exists and sometimes happens.
As a general matter, I think juries and jurors take their roles seriously. Of all of the problems I think our criminal justice system has, I would put juries pretty low on the list.
Mr. Cohen needs to have spent a little time learning about the Trump felony case. The charges were totally invented by Bragg. Even assuming that the Trump organization falsely recorded the hush money it would not have been a felony—if convicted it would have been a misdemeanor. However, the records charge has passed the statute of limitations. Bragg resurrected the charge to use a law that says if a misdemeanor was committed to cover a crime it could be tried as a felony. However, it required multiple instances in order to qualify. Bragg used an unheard of methodology—he counted every check for ms. Daniels as a misdemeanor in order to show that he was attempting to cover a crime. What was the crime? Well that is still unclear since Bragg and the presiding judge did not require the prosecution to specifically specify the underlying crime Trump was charged with. Instead, he essentially argued that the jury could use its imagination to find its own crime and the jury was not required to come to a unanimous decision on the underlying crime committed. This is unconstitutional.
I'm reasonably certain that if the Senate had voted to impeach Trump after Jan 6th and therefore precluded him from being able to run for president again that none of these cases would've been brought against him. Regardless of the underlying merits of this particular case, Alvin Bragg had considerable prosecutorial discretion as Glenn alluded to. In my opinion, these cases were more or less a response to the realization that not only was Trump not permanently damaged by the events of Jan 6th, but that somewhat perversely those events actually helped to bolster his popularity and put him in prime position to win reelection in 2024.
I find the particular case brought by Alvin Bragg to be especially ironic given that Trump was accused of trying to illegally influence the 2016 election. I suppose the voters will render their final judgment on Election Day. Viva democracy!
"I'm reasonably certain that if the Senate had voted to impeach Trump after Jan 6th and therefore precluded him from being able to run for president again that none of these cases would've been brought against him."
Strong disagree. Even out of office, Trump has a certain amount of political power as a result of his potential to be reelected. I think the all cases against him would have moved more quickly if he had been disqualified by the Senate.
I think he could have avoided the classified documents case at any time up to the execution of the search warrant by cooperating. The Jan 6 charges and probably the NY charge were coming regardless.
"Even assuming that the Trump organization falsely recorded the hush money it would not have been a felony—if convicted it would have been a misdemeanor."
Under NY law, falsification of business records is a misdemeanor, while falsification of business records with the intent to commit or cover up another crime is a felony. Trump was charged with the latter.
You can disagree with the criminal statutes of Ney York all you want, but the fact remains, Trump was charged with felony based on NY criminal statutes.
"However, the records charge has passed the statute of limitations. Bragg resurrected the charge to use a law that says if a misdemeanor was committed to cover a crime it could be tried as a felony. "
The misdemeanor charge had passed the statute of limitations; the felony had not. As you note, that was the law.
"However, it required multiple instances in order to qualify. "
As far as I'm aware, this is not actually true. He could have made one charge, or three, or 11, or more than 34 (he did not charge every applicable document, several doucments entered into evidence could have been charged but were not.
Did Bragg run up the number of charges? Probably. But this is in no way an unheard of practice among prosecutors.
"What was the crime? Well that is still unclear since Bragg and the presiding judge did not require the prosecution to specifically specify the underlying crime Trump was charged with. "
That is false. here's how it worked:
1. The crime charged was the felony version of falsifying business records.
2. The elements of that crime were 1) falsifying business records 2) with intent to commit or conceal another crime.
3. The "other crime" given to the jury was a single NY statue that made it illegal to influence an election by unlawful means.
To find Trump guilty, the jury needed to find, unanimously, that Trump falsified business records with the intent to influence an election through unlawful means.
Where the judge did not require unanimity was on what the "unlawful means" were. The prosecution presented 3 theories of what they could have been, and the jurors did not need to unanimously agree on a single means. The judge based the decision not to require unanimity on unlawful means on state precedent.
"Instead, he essentially argued that the jury could use its imagination to find its own crime and the jury was not required to come to a unanimous decision on the underlying crime committed."
In no way whatsoever did the prosecution argue anything remotely like "use your imagination to find your own crime." Unanimity was required on the specific statues that were the basis of Trump's conviction.
All of that said, it's a decent argument for Trump to make on appeal, though I would not expect him to win on it, he might.
Michael your response to my comments simply confirms the points I tried to make. This was a political trial. Bragg ran on the pledge to find a crime to get Trump. This trial could have been carried out in the former USSR, the current Russia or communist China.
Not only did Bragg did not pledge to find a crime to get Trump, he did not move forward with the investigations of Trump that his predecessor started, causing a couple of prosecutors in his office to angrily resign.
As I feel pretty sure you know, the 34 convictions Trump received last week were his first. But the law he was convicted of did not require prior conviction, and I did not reporesent in my post that he had prior convictions.
so where was his due process for the criminal charges he was convicted of covering up. Or is the opinion of a prosecutor that a defendant committed a prior crime enough for you?
A few initial thoughts ... I am amazed not at the conversation itself, but at two different versions of reality. That Trump should be held accountable for committing crimes, sure. But that ignores 1) Biden prosecutor Robert Hur effectively saying "yes Biden committed crimes, but he is old and confused so we won't even consider prosecuting."; Hilary Clinton destroyed a server that contained classified documents that were under subpoena as evidence to her committing a crime, and James Comer simply saying "yeah, we'll just let this one go."; 3) Also Hillary violating federal election law with the whole fabricated and paid for "Steele Dossier", complete with an assist from federal agencies and the press (I think she FINED $8,000 for that felony). This all ignores that the judge in the Trump trial violated state law presiding over his case as a Democrat party donor. And, still not clear on what those 34 felonies were, decided perhaps piecemeal separately by some or all of the jury (I've sat on 7 criminal juries and was always told it is either unanimous or it is done, not that some people can agree on one thing, a few on different things, and we will just sort of add it all up afterwards and see what we get). I can't understand how one can say "Trump broke the law and must face the consequences" and yet be fine (presumably) about all those others (Biden, Clinton X 2, Merchan ... I could go on!). Unless, again, different reality.
And the Trump racism points? Check out the link below. Biden was on public record many times acting in ways that I think even polite company could easily define as racist. The link below is just one of many examples .. that one from NBC (not a hard right outlet by my estimation!) discussing Biden's venomous opposition to school integration. I won't repeat the quotes Biden made on public record. Joe spoke at one of his former mentor, Robert Byrd's (at one point an extremely high ranking dirtball in the KKK) funeral. During both the Obama campaign, and multiple times during his own campaign and Presidency, he has spouted off-the-cuff highly offensive race-oriented statements, including suggesting that one non-white speaker was on crack (not in a joking manner). Yet, again, in a parallel universe, Biden is a "good hearted, kindly, gently man" and Trump is a lowlife racist.
I am not surprised that very smart and informed people dislike Trump. There are all kinds of people I dislike who others love and vice versa. I am shocked that many of those same smart and informed people presumably live in a parallel universe where things that actually occurred were apparently different.
For years, our legal system has given kid gloves treatment to high level officials who commit classified document offenses. Biden could have been charged, but a conviction of him was very unlikely for several reasons beyond the one you mention, the most important of them being that when the documents were brought to his attention, he turned them over and consented to FBI searches of his properties.
If you look at the whole history of charging senior officials with retention of classified documents, there is basically no one charged and convicted who gave the stuff back when asked. Why was Trump charged and iden not? From the Hur report:
"Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation."
so illegally taking the documents as a senator, sharing some with a ghost writer, keeping them in the garage and such all goes away because he returned them and cooperated?
Not only because he returned them and cooperated, but that is a huge part of it. I think the DOJ's evidence regarding the most severe potential charge (dissemination to the ghost writer) was insufficient. I think Trump avoid his own dissemination charge for the same reason.
You could also say that the DOJ cooperated with Biden. Biden had some documents for 10 years; the DOJ didn't appear to care until they went after Trump. Why didn't the DOJ demand documents back in 2016?
You could also also say the DOJ mixed up evidence during and after the Mar a Lago, prepared for an armed attack on Trump (and his secret service protectors), and rifled through his wife's personal belongings. And that Trump had the right to hold (what Trump claimed) were unclassified docs in a fortress whereas Biden, as former VP and Senator, had no authority to hold them in bank boxes in his garage. But again, different universes. And if we are all being honest here: it Trump was a Democrat and running for office none of this ever would have occurred and he would be enjoying his second term right now.
"prepared for an armed attack on Trump (and his secret service protectors)"
This is a ludicrous lie disseminated by Trump and right wing media. Facts:
1. Every operation undertaken by the FBI includes a use of policy, the purpose of which is to place limitations on the authorization to use deadly force.
2. The use of force policy used in executing the Maralago search warrant was consistent with the FBI's general guidelines for use of force and the same policy was in force for the FBI's voluntary searches of Biden's properties.
3. The timing of the search of Maralago was set up so that the search would be conducted while Trump and his family were away to minimize any potential for a confrontation.
4. The search was coordinated with the members of Trump's secret service detail who were at Maralago at the time to further minimize any confrontations.
5. Trump's lawyer made a disingenous claim in a legal filing and right wing media picked up and circulated this nonsensical claim.
"And that Trump had the right to hold (what Trump claimed) were unclassified docs in a fortress whereas Biden, as former VP and Senator, had no authority to hold them in bank boxes in his garage. "
False. Trump, AS PRESIDENT, had the authority to send classified documents to Maralago - and he was not actually charged with that. Trump as former President did not have the right to possess classified documents. Biden, in his years out of office, did not have the right to have classified documents either. But, very much unlike Trump, he gave them back when they were found.
"Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation."
Trump, BTW, has yet to sit for a voluntary interview (or to testify) regarding any of the crimes he has been charged with. It is his right to remain silent, of course.
So you honestly, truly, believe that the FBI were there that day not to execute a search warrant but to commit an assassination? I'll hang up and listen.
On Trump. Yeah, to deny a politically motivated trial and claim "nobody is above the law" while simultaneously noting that that the explicit statements by Bragg to go after Trump while failing to prosecute large numbers of criminals in NYC. And to ignore that Clinton (emails) & Biden (classified documents in his garage for many years) both seem to be "above the law".
On Gaza. It *is* ugly. But to say "it's unacceptable" without providing an "acceptable" solution seems naive. I'm not sure there is one that Joshua would find "acceptable"; I think we often must settle for the "least bad". I keep going back to 1945 and asking "was what the Allies did to finish German and Japan 'acceptable'?" Of course, I think that's a rhetorical question with the answer being "YES". Should have we turned on the USSR in Jan 1945 when it was obvious what the Red Army was doing in Eastern Europe? There wasn't an "acceptable" way to end WW-II.
And to say "Well, this [eliminate Hamas] isn't going to happen, we should stop trying". is likely a self-fulfilling prophecy. Where would we be if that argument was made about Japan in 1945 (they seemed pretty fanatical & willing to fight to the death). And why are those arguments always one-sided, where is the "Israel is not going to stop in Gaza, you should stop trying to undercut them?"
On Rawls. Too long of a topic. I like the idea of a "veil of ignorance". I strongly disagree with his conclusions (they don't seem what a rational person would conclude).
On a personal note: Glenn, yeah, I generally disagree with you on Gaza. And I wish you had more people on the other side on your show. But it's OK. You keep speaking your mind!
> And to ignore that Clinton (emails) & Biden (classified documents in his garage for many years) both seem to be "above the law".
Part of what DOJ evalautes when deciding whether to file charges is the likelihood of obtaining and maintaining (through appeal) a conviction. In the case of both Clinton and Biden, there wasn't a winnable case there for DOJ. What politically-motivated-by-Trump prosecution did have a winnale case? The prosecution of Hunter Biden. And jury selection for Hunter's trial began today.
Those things are all true. But the more complex it gets, the more "no one is above the law" starts to sound a little hollow. Apparently, Alvin Bragg thought he *could* get a conviction. And in Manhattan, which Biden won by SEVENTY-FOUR points, that's pretty much a slam-dunk.
It appears that Clinton was certainly allowed to break the law with no fear of consequences. So there is a precedent.
If a black man is convicted by an all-white jury, that raises questions. Do you really suggest that the average white person hates blacks more than the average Manhattanite hates Trump?
I’m quite surprised by the points put forward by Josh regarding Trump and Biden. He seemed to be holding back quite a bit, my guess is either lack of preparedness or respect for Glenn, but this is the sort of stuff I hear from run of the mill democrats. To suggest that the Trump trial was not politically motivated is just disingenuous, particularly for a man as esteemed as Josh.
If any Democrats say no one is above the law I say great, I agree. Now let’s go and prosecute Biden, Biden’s son, Hillary, Obama et al. If that happened I would have no problem with Trump being prosecuted for such nonsense, but it won’t and it’s the double standards on EVERYTHING that people are so sick of!
Also to say you like Biden means you haven’t paid attention to the man.
For decades now he has played on the death of his wife and kids. He’s played on the death of his other son. He’s protecting his junkie son. He pushed a crime bill because he didn’t want ‘a racial jungle’, he patronizes blacks even today by saying ‘if you don’t vote for me you ain’t black’ and showing up at a black family home with a bucket of fried chicken. For gods sake how can anyone say this is a decent or likable man?!
I regularly step back and look at things and sometimes even ask people if I have been captured by Trump and the Republican Party. The answer always comes back as no.
Biden has been used as a puppet by Obama and the ‘squad’ who have extreme left policies. They don’t believe in them, they just know that they can use them to get votes. I have no sympathy for him or his wife who is happy to parade her husband around, knowing full well that he has cognitive issues, and letting him be the president of the United States, for goodness sake.
I am sick and tired of the present day culture which normalizes this utter corruption.
You are conflating two separate issues: 1) Did Trump commit a crime? and 2) Would this crime have been prosecuted had it not been Trump?
Political influence could be an explanation for why the case was brought, but it remains true that the jury found him guilty, and so he is, by the standards we use to adjudicate this in this country, guilty. He will appeal, and he has a few decent arguments but nothing guaranteed to prevail.
As a candidate for President in 2016 Trump advocated that his political enemies should be targeted for prosecution. As the President, he oversaw a DOJ that targeted his political opponents for prosecution. Before he left office, his AG appointed 2 of his DOJ officials to inviestigate his political opponents. Biden's AG, Merrick Garland, allowed those investigations to continue, but they were begin in and by the Trump Administration.
As a result of one of those investigations, two people involved in the Clinton campaign were put on trial. However, the cases against them were weak and thery were acquitted. Clinton herself was not charged because there wasn't a credible case against her.
As a result of the other of those investigations, Hunter Biden went on trial today. Hunter is very likely to be convicted because, like Trump, he is almost certainly guilty of the crime he was charged with. But the crime he was charged with (lying on a gun purchase form that he was not a drug addict/user) is almost never charged against anyone. Like Trump, he'll be convicted because he is guilty, but also like Trump, he'll be convicted because he was targeted. Hunter is also facing some rarely used tax charges in another jurisdiction).
Why was Joe never charged? Because he's law abiding. All of the digging for dirt about him turned up nothing. Not breaking the law in the first is a good way to avoid a political prosecution.
"Why was Joe never charged? Because he's law abiding. "
I thought charges were not brought on the documents because Biden is so mentally impaired a jury would be reluctant to convict him. Weird logic, but that's what Robert Hur testified to.
It is DOJ practice to generally not bring charged unless a conviction could be obtained and sustained (ie, on appeal). There are a lot of reasons to think that Biden could not have been convicted.
The big ones for me are that 1) Presidents and VPs have been allowed some leniency and 2) willful retention crimes have historically been charged against people who refused to return classified materials when asked. On top of that, the evidence supporting the worst evidence against Biden (dissemination to his ghost writer) was circumstantial. Hur would have asked the jury to infer that when Biden, in his then home in VA, said "I just found the classified stuff downstairs" he was referring specifically to the documents that were later found in his Delaware garage. He would have had strong arguments to make to any jury and according to Hur would likely have come across well as a witness and the jury would not have held memory lapses against him.
Consider also the dissemination charge that was NOT brought against Trump. The indictment alleges that, in a meeting with Mark Meadows' ghost writer, Trump talked aout having a classified document with plans for a US attack against Iran, which he claimed was written by then Chair of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley. This meeting was recorded, and you can hear Trump boasting about havig the document, saying it was classified. You can even hear papers rustling as Trump speaks. That seems like some pretty strong evidence that Trump was showing off classified documents, but DOJ did not charge Trump with dissemination? Why not? One possible reason is that they did not have the full chain of evidence needed to make that charge stick. They may not have had the actual document at issue, they may not have had a witness who could verify that that particular document is the one Trump has on that tape. Without those, Trump's defense could argue that no crime had been proven, itcould all have been all just boasting. Anyway, Biden's dissemination has the same issue as Trump's.
I think he could somewhat reasonably have been charged with dissemination, but he would never have been convicted of it, even if he were somehow 20 years younger with perfect memory.
Regarding the question of whether Trump committed a crime. Using the fact that a jury found him guilty is a little disingenuous. Taken on its own then of course a jury of your peers is a good standard. However that ignores as you know the large number of precedents that the judge broke in the trial, not to mention the fact that the judge also contributed financially to a group whose stated mission is to ‘stop Trump’. That alone would show clear bias and he didn’t recuse himself because apparently the officiating body deemed it unnecessary. That doesn’t mean the bias wasn’t there.
Now let’s step back even further; every legal expert I have heard, including people not on Trumps side like Alan Dershowitz and Bill Barr have all said this trial was ridiculous and just not a crime.
So a jury found him guilty but guilty of what? Nobody seems to know and I believe legally you have to tell the defendant what crime they’re committing.
I think we can agree that prosecuting political opponents is bad for the country?
"However that ignores as you know the large number of precedents that the judge broke in the trial, not to mention the fact that the judge also contributed financially to a group whose stated mission is to ‘stop Trump’. That alone would show clear bias and he didn’t recuse himself because apparently the officiating body deemed it unnecessary. "
The judge did not break a large number of precedents, and according to NY practice was not required to recuse. And his rulings during the trial were not one-sided.
I think part of the reason why Trump was convicted is that he interfered with his lawyers' ability to put forward his best defense.
They found him guilty of falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal anorther crime. Specifically, that he intended to violate a NY statute that prohibits interference with an election by unlawful means.
The second statute, the one that allowed the flasifying business records to be charged as a felony, was Section 17-152 of NY election law. The jury unanimouly agreed that the falsification of bisiness recods was done with intent to violate NY 17-152.
“No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge,” the Supreme Court stated in Cole v. Arkansas (1948), “and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, [is] among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal.” In in re Winship (1970), the justices affirmed that “the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” These three due-process precepts—notice, meaningful opportunity to defend, and proof of all elements—were absent in Mr. Trump’s trial.
The state offense with which Mr. Trump was indicted, “falsifying business records,” requires proof of an “intent to defraud.” To elevate this misdemeanor to a felony, the statute requires proof of “intent to commit another crime.” In People v. Bloomfield (2006), the state’s highest court observed that “intent to commit another crime” is an indispensable element of the felony offense.
New York courts have concluded that the accused need not be convicted of the other crime since an “intent to commit” it is sufficient to satisfy the statute. But because that intent is, in the words of Winship, “a fact necessary to constitute the crime,” it is an element of felony falsification. Due process requires that the defendant receive timely notice of the other crime he allegedly intended to commit. It also requires that he have opportunity to defend against that accusation and that prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt his intent to commit it.
Mr. Trump’s indictment didn’t specify the other crime he allegedly intended to commit. Prosecutors didn’t do so during the trial either. Only after the evidentiary phase of the trial did Judge Juan Merchan reveal that the other crime was Section 17-152 of New York’s election law, which makes it a misdemeanor to engage in a conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”
Glenn, I just subscribed and paid specifically to make this point. So, it isn’t a point strongly against you at all, although I am slightly frustrated.
Mr. Cohen on Israel and students on these campuses was incredibly frustrating. All of his comments were filled with just falsehoods, false moralizing, and the insistence on tenuous motives with no evidence. I know you are critical of Israel too; however, when these things are said in real time I am not sure why you don’t challenge them. In regards to contentious social matters in the US, you will frequently challenge guests on points even when you generally agree with them just to play devils advocate.
Examples,
1. “The amount of lives lost in the conduct of this war”. Compared to what? Yes, it is more death than anyone ever wants to see. But, specifically in regards to protests the “compared to what?” is an enormous question and needs to be answered. Because for the region, it’s certainly not “exorbitant” or at all an outlier or at all unique, unless you declare like any death figure above let’s say 10k exorbitant, which is perfectly fair as an objective measure of “that’s a ton of death”; however, again misleading when talking about what is inspiring these protests and incomplete.
2. “Especially the amount of innocent lives”. Same caveats as above, then yes of course it is a tragedy. But again, “compared to what?” is a valid and NECESSARY question. Compared to modern urban warfare? Certainly not, that is just false. On a ratio basis? No. False. As gross figures to modern conflicts? No. False. As against the demographics of the surrounding society? No. False. Again, it is only true in a cosmic sense of any time lots of people die it is a terrible thing. And again YES of course it is a terrible thing. But, when discussing protests again entirely insufficient.
3. “No defined endpoint or plausible strategy”. End point is Hamas is eradicated as a governing structure. Plausible strategy is killing them until they hold no power in the region. This has been communicated literally constantly since Oct 7. The rebuttal to it takes the form of “But Hamas is an idea”. Which is as accurate as it is a non sequitur and immaterial. The end point is not until everyone in Gaza with dislike of Israel is gone. It’s not even until everyone who SUPPORTS Hamas is gone. It’s until the people who make up the governing force and structural force of Hamas are gone. The people firing rockets, stealing aid, building tunnels, building weapons, governing, communing with foreign allies of theirs, etc. The people who run Hamas are gone. Ridding Gaza of them is not only not at all implausible, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption and predictable.
4. “People experiencing horror, rightly, and sensing it has to stop”. Again, separate of all reality, perfectly reasonable. It is perfectly reasonable to see death and destruction to this degree and find horror in it. It is horrible. Again, does absolutely zero to explain the protests. Because the protests aren’t divorced from reality. They take place in the context of the world we’re living in.
5. “When you ask how, I didn’t get us into this, this is just not within the bounds of acceptability”. US is not “into this” unless you’re saying they provide them aid and funding, which if that is the standard of any of these kids in reality, they’re going to have a truly eye opening experience once someone shows them the extent of their own ignorance. To shirking the “how”, the analogy falls apart even more. Vietnam the protests were literally to say “I am not going” as they were drafting people. The protest and the how are interlinked. Not providing a “how” to a foreign conflict you’re protesting is the admission you’re doing nothing more than screaming at the sky as the best of reads, and at the worst of reads you could insinuate they have evil intent. “Not within the bounds of acceptability” as all the above point out, “compared to what?”. That again is not only a reasonable question, it is a NECESSARY question. What IS acceptable?
All of this to say, Cohen is clearly and explicitly a supporter of these protests while also offering protestors all the proper motives that make their *cause* reasonable, rational and moral. But, at the very slightest of inspection and digging beyond the patina of morality, the entire structure falls apart. It leaves you with solely the conclusions, these students are incredibly, incredibly, incredibly, mind boggling ignorant. Or, there is something else going on here that Cohen is not addressing that either he himself is ignorant to, or is choosing not to acknowledge.
To support pretty much all 1 through 5 of these points as it relates to the Israel Gaza conflict, you have to place it within the world. Placing it within the world you immediately raise questions.
Where are the protests over Syria? Maybe 1M killed. 12M displaced. Hundreds of thousands of women and children killed. Truly indiscriminate bombing. Entire cities flattened. Input of many foreign nations both in weapons and funding and direct assistance. A dictatorial regime. Has been ongoing for 13 years. Where are the protests?
Where are the protests over Yemen? Maybe 400,000 killed. 25M displaced. Famine and starvation actually widespread killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians. (Not doubting there is famine in Gaza. I’m pointing to 10ks dead from famine and asking where is the comparable level in Gaza). Indiscriminate bombing. Violence caused by an authoritarian terrorist group most civilians don’t support. I put of many foreign countries in funding, weapons supply and direct action. Has been going on for a decade. Where are the protests?
Where are the protests over Uyghurs treatment in China? 11.5M people as part of an ethnic minority forced into camps. Do not have full rights. Have been killed indiscriminately with no legal action against perpetrators. Many accusations and pretty strong evidence of rape. Some evidence of forced sterilizations. Has been going on for a decade. Has been described as a genocide for years. Where are the protests?
Congo, Afghanistan, Mali, Myanmar? Why does seemingly no one know or protest about any of these conflicts? The suffering is the same or more. The “injustice” by all the standards set out by Cohen the same or more. Why do they get zero attention?
More specific to the region, why is Israel this great horrible force and not Jordan? Jordan was established as a state from the Balfour Declarion, almost identical to Israel. The leadership of Jordan is from the Hashemite dynasty. They’re not “native” to Jordan by literally anyone’s definition. Jordan also expelled Palestinians from their country, many of the people who now make up the West Bank. They also currently will not accept any palestinians from West Bank or Gaza into their country. Why is no one protesting Jordan? Or at least mentioning their culpability?
Why is no one mentioning Egypt? Egypt shares a border with Gaza. They also will not accept refugees, they have provided zero or a fraction of the aid as Israel or the US, and continue to strengthen the walls and barriers of their border with Gaza. Why is no one protesting Egypt? Or at least mentioning their culpability?
I am not one that is going to say these students are antisemitic. What I will say is they’re acting in a practical manner indistinguishable from antisemitism. And I am not sure if the distinction between their beliefs and their resulting actions from their beliefs is an important distinction. Further and to the point, why don’t you challenge your guests on this? To anyone who knows anything about global conflict, anything about global suffering, anything about the history of the area, anything about this specific conflict, and anything about the specifics of modern warfare, they can still say “what is happening in Gaza is horrific!!”, but preemptively if you were to judge all people and countries equal in standing and only judge conflicts if you asked “would this conflict be expected to produce an exceptional amount of outrage compared to everything else?” they would certainly say no.
I don’t think Cohen wants to acknowledge 1. How ignorant these kids are and 2. How much they’re being swayed by a more engrained ideology at these universities. An ideology where an Israeli killing a Palestinian is immediately seen as worse than a Congolese killing a Rwandan. An ideology that sees a Palestinian killing a Israeli as more justified. An ideology that looks for oppressor and oppressed but cuts its search criteria off at racial lines. An ideology that solely sees a problem with Israel being formed and the movement of people that entailed. But simultaneously has nothing to say about the concurrent expulsions from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, etc. An ideology that will call one party an “ethno state” that has a MAJORITY of individuals they perceive as white (when they’re not) and a significant minority (20%+) of other citizens with full rights, and will have no such terms of opprobrium for the party that is legitimately 99% one ethnicity and 99% one religion and vows publicly to not allow equal rights for minorities if they were given power.
You may keep thinking I am describing antisemitism, or you may think I’m weighting it to walk a reader to the conclusion of antisemitism, or insinuating otherwise it is pure antisemitism. But, as I said before. I do not think it is antisemitism, I just think it functions in a practical manner the exact same way, and I am not sure the distinction between the beliefs and the actions are important.
I should comment on Israeli military response to Hamas attack, while I am still Muslim. (If my fellow Muslims don’t get their act together- I may defect like Ayan Hirsi Ali). When I converted to Islam, I didn’t stop being pro-Israel, nor pro-Jewish. I want to ask the reader, what do you think China would do if neighboring North Korea launched the same Hamas-styled attack into China? Within 24 hours, China would use bombs and bullets to erase the country. Then, news media would blame North Korea for self-inflicted harm. And unless Israel takes efforts to locate all hostages in Gazan tunnels- then Israelis will be sitting ducks as potential hostage victims.
Hamas has built tunnels only under civilian areas. While all civilians could fit inside the tunnels, none are allowed in.
[Time 37:00]; Guest Joshua Cohen commenting on Loury at Palm Beach Synagog not mentioning the anticipated high death counts for Gaza civilians during Israeli invasion; I disagree with Cohen’s claim that part of Palm Beach audience therefore thinks that Loury agrees with Israeli military into Gaza strategy. Not necessarily. If I were in audience- and I watched entire YouTube video, I would think that Loury’s position is unknown.
Also, Loury was on a time-budget at Palm Beach and therefore forced to pick and choose what to say. Loury’s talk was focused on Black-Jewish relations in USA. I ask that Loury give lessons on focus to debaters of 2024 May FreePress Israel-Palestine debate mediated by triggernometry host.
What do you think Glenn should teach Briahna "Joyless" Gray and the "Blonde" Zionist?
This guy does a better job than me explaining what went wrong with the Kafka sham political trial in NY. I was never a Trump fan until multiple nasty insults, denigration, threats, and more came my way for criticizing ... well ... almost anything about Biden. Not even electronically. In person in my home town. I guess I was driven to drink in a sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u23t__ysVjU
"Whether you love, hate or merely tolerate Donald Trump, you should care about due process, which is fundamental to the rule of law. New York’s trial of Mr. Trump violated basic due-process principles.
“No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge,” the Supreme Court stated in Cole v. Arkansas (1948), “and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, [is] among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal.” In in re Winship (1970), the justices affirmed that “the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” These three due-process precepts—notice, meaningful opportunity to defend, and proof of all elements—were absent in Mr. Trump’s trial.
The state offense with which Mr. Trump was indicted, “falsifying business records,” requires proof of an “intent to defraud.” To elevate this misdemeanor to a felony, the statute requires proof of “intent to commit another crime.” In People v. Bloomfield (2006), the state’s highest court observed that “intent to commit another crime” is an indispensable element of the felony offense.
New York courts have concluded that the accused need not be convicted of the other crime since an “intent to commit” it is sufficient to satisfy the statute. But because that intent is, in the words of Winship, “a fact necessary to constitute the crime,” it is an element of felony falsification. Due process requires that the defendant receive timely notice of the other crime he allegedly intended to commit. It also requires that he have opportunity to defend against that accusation and that prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt his intent to commit it.
Mr. Trump’s indictment didn’t specify the other crime he allegedly intended to commit. Prosecutors didn’t do so during the trial either. Only after the evidentiary phase of the trial did Judge Juan Merchan reveal that the other crime was Section 17-152 of New York’s election law, which makes it a misdemeanor to engage in a conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”
To recap, the prosecution involved (1) a misdemeanor elevated to a felony based on an “intent to commit another crime,” (2) an indictment and trial that failed to specify, or present evidence establishing, another crime the defendant intended to commit, and (3) a jury instruction that the other crime was one that necessitated further proof of “unlawful means.” It’s a Russian-nesting-doll theory of criminality: The charged crime hinged on the intent to commit another, unspecified crime, which in turn hinged on the actual commission of yet another unspecified offense.
To make matters worse, Judge Merchan instructed the jury: “Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.”
Due process demands that felony verdicts be unanimous, but in Schad v. Arizona (1991), a murder case, the high court indicated that there need not be unanimity regarding the means by which a crime is committed. But a plurality opinion by Justice David Souter cautioned that if the available means of committing a crime are so capacious that the accused is not “in a position to understand with some specificity the legal basis of the charge against him,” due process will be violated. “Nothing in our history suggests that the Due Process Clause would permit a State to convict anyone under a charge of ‘Crime’ so generic that any combination of jury findings of embezzlement, reckless driving, murder, burglary, tax evasion, or littering, for example, would suffice for conviction,” Justice Souter wrote.
Justice Antonin Scalia concurred, observing that “one can conceive of novel ‘umbrella’ crimes (a felony consisting of either robbery or failure to file a tax return) where permitting a 6-to-6 verdict would seem contrary to due process.” Four dissenting justices argued that the In re Winship precedent requires unanimity regarding all elements of a crime, including the means by which it’s committed.
All nine justices in Schad, then, believed unanimity is required to convict when the means by which a crime can be committed are so broad that the accused doesn’t receive fair notice of the basis of the charge. New York’s election law requires that the violation occur “by unlawful means,” so any “unlawful” act—including, in Scalia’s example, either robbery of failure to file a tax return—can qualify. That’s clearly overbroad. Thus, Judge Merchan’s instruction that the jury “need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were” was unconstitutional.
That isn’t all. Judge Merchan hand-selected three laws—federal election law, falsification of “other” business records and “violation of tax laws”—as the “unlawful means” by which state election law was violated. Mr. Trump received no notice of any of these offenses, and the prosecutor briefly alluded only to federal election law, during the trial. Mr. Trump tried to call former Federal Election Commission Chairman Brad Smith to explain why this law wasn’t violated, but Judge Merchan ruled Mr. Smith couldn’t testify on whether Mr. Trump’s conduct “does or does not constitute a violation” of federal election law, denying him a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Judge Merchan’s second “unlawful” means, falsification of other business records, is circular: A misdemeanor becomes a felony if one falsifies business records by falsifying business records. Further, the prosecution never alleged or provided evidence that Mr. Trump falsified “other” business records. The prosecutors likewise neither alleged nor offered evidence that Mr. Trump had violated tax laws, Judge Merchan’s third predicate.
Mr. Trump, like all criminal defendants, was entitled to due process. The Constitution demands that higher courts throw out the verdict against him. That takes time, however, and is unlikely to occur before the election. That unfortunate reality will widen America’s political divide and fuel the suspicion that Mr. Trump’s prosecution wasn’t about enforcing the law but wounding a presidential candidate for the benefit of his opponent."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-trial-violated-due-process-76fae047
Nicely written.
Glenn talking about the issue of Israel with zero mention of Hamas is staggeringly blind.
He mentioned that he was invited to speak before October 7th, 2023. We all know what happened on that date.
Glenn. That man is so biased he is really unworthy of having representation on this forum. I’ll leave the Trump stuff to others and raise one point regarding his comments re: Israel and student protests on campus. He claimed the protests were an understandable reaction to the aggressive response of the Israeli military in Gaza. He seems to have forgotten what happened on campus in the immediate aftermath of 10/7. Israel had not made any move yet but protesters began their actions, including intimidation tactics of non-Israeli Jewish students and professors. This man needs to correct the record on your site, without delay. This is really a disgrace!
Also, where are the protests against the war in Yemen, in which Saudi Arabia has killed many thousands with US weapons?
Yemen, a place where there had been a thriving Jewish community for many centuries, and, from which, the people decided to ethnically cleanse the Jews. The Jews who survived ended up in Israel, now still being pursued for death by the Yemeni Houthi’s. Where is the protest about that?
Yeah, that's a good point. I was thinking of all the Arabs that died in the war.
The question of if a less public or less reviled individual would've gotten convicted of these same charges seems like the key question. I wonder if any potential Glenn show guests could make a strong case either way.
It doesn't seem flippant to me. If I'm donating to a campaign, and it turns out the money is being used to keep information from me, I'd like for them to get in trouble.
Hunter Biden's gun charges are probably politically motivated too, but buying illegal guns while on drugs also seems like a legit charge and I like to see him get in trouble for it.
So politically motivated charges are OK... if you agree with them? Not sure that is a workable standard.
No, definitely not.
I'm trying to take the political motivation out of the equation and just consider the merits of the charge.
If Hunter or Trump were prosecuted for something like jaywalking or going 1mph over the speed limit, I think (hope) almost anyone would say that's politically motivated BS.
If Hunter or Trump was caught on film murdering someone in cold blood, I think (hope) almost anyone would say they should be prosecuted.
My uneducated sense is that both Trump and Biden's crimes are closer to the latter, but I'd love for a real lawyer, someone who has experience deciding which cases to prosecute and which to let go, to weigh in.
The notion that Donald Trump poses a unique threat to the American polity is a vastly overstated thesis in my opinion. There are far broader structural issues at play that transcend the charismatic demagoguery of Trump and are far more deleterious to the well-being of the republic.
The modern-day reincarnation of wokeness post-2013 and the ensuing flames of the culture wars have almost certainly left America worse off as a result. As our institutions increasingly abandon meritocracy and our elected politicians shirk their duty to keep Americans safe from crime, quality of life has steadily eroded in this country, particularly in large cities, and America has steadily declined in competitiveness relative to peer nations.
Likewise, as the recent war in Gaza has laid bare, the American political class has essentially been co-opted by big money and works for the interests of its donors rather than for the well-being of the American people. Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks persuasively lays out the case for this in his recent book Justice is Coming, highlighting how on a number of important issues such as background checks for gun sales, the American political class is completely out of touch with the views of the American people due to the corrupting influence of lobbyist groups such as the NRA and others. Our politicians have basically become whores for the interests of big corporations and foreign governments rather than working to advance the well-being of the constituents they ostensibly represent. The recent attempt by 12 Republican US Senators to intimidate the head of the ICC Karim Khan against pursuing warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant along with senior leaders of Hamas was dismaying to say the least.
Trump faced numerous criticisms over his America-first economic and foreign policies that supposedly ran contrary to the established tenets of the neoliberal order. Yet not only has the Biden administration kept in place many of the Trump era tariffs and sanctions, they've also expanded them significantly in many respects. Back in October 2022, the Biden administration unilaterally levied unprecedented semiconductor sanctions against China while attempting to coerce allied nations such as Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea and Taiwan into following suit. Recently Biden also increased tariffs on Chinese EVs from 25% to 100%, partly in deference to the UAW as a means of shoring up his political support prior to the November elections, but also in large part due to the increasingly protectionist bent of the American political class vis-a-vis China.
https://www.wsj.com/economy/america-is-sliding-toward-chinese-style-capitalism-fff67df4
As Grep Ip of the WSJ notes, America has increasingly come to mirror China in its political and economic orientation, particularly in its newfound penchant for subjugating economic interests to the arbitrarily defined interests of national security. Anyone who believes in the importance of free speech should have been deeply concerned by the recent push in the House and the Senate to ban TikTok and by Biden subsequently signing off on this ban that was packaged as part of a set of separate House bills providing foreign aid to Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel. Ironically, despite attempting to ban TikTok by executive fiat back in 2020 only to be thwarted by the courts, Trump has now come out against such a move. Some have cynically noted that this was in large part due to the financial influence of Republican mega-donor Jeffrey Yass, who's part owner of the company that merged with Trump's media company which owns Truth Social.
America's shift away from the neoliberal principles it's embraced for decades is part of a broader structural trend that transcends the America first principles of someone like Donald Trump, as evidenced by the fact that the aforementioned events of recent years have occurred entirely under the Biden administration. The American political class's unconditional support for Israel and its assault upon global semiconductor and EV supply chains has increasingly resulted in America becoming isolated from the rest of the world. But none of this is due to the unique threat that Trump supposedly poses.
Donald Trump is certainly someone who routinely spouts crude and provocative rhetoric and treats the conventional norms of civility with utter contempt. Yet this anti-establishment streak is precisely why so many in this country embrace him, myself included. In my opinion, to believe that Trump somehow poses a unique threat to the republic when America is beset by a far broader set of structural issues in the body politic is to truly miss the forest for the trees.
I'll conclude Glenn by referencing your observation about the reactions you've gotten in the comments section of this Substack to some of your commentary. A big part of the reason why I unsubscribed from Bari Weiss's site The Free Press was that although much of the reporting and commentary on the culture wars was quite good, the complete opposite was true when it came to geopolitics. There was an unbridled America is the city on the hill and the defender of the rules based international order chest thumping that in my opinion bordered on the delusional.
Personally, I've become disillusioned by the so-called heterodox community in large part because apart from the culture wars, so much of its opinion on other matters such as Israel or China is decidedly establishment and non-contrarian. I'm not suggesting that everyone needs to echo the talking points of people like John Mearsheimer, but it's obvious that we've been consumed by a more than 3 decade post-End of History hangover in this country.
The republic is in serious trouble and not only for all the reasons I've articulated above. America has increasingly become drunk on its own ideological delusions and isolated from the greater trends of the 21st century. Historically European countries were far more open to other civilizations and cultures than vice versa. Sadly, the situation seems to have reversed. The average American today knows far less about China than does the average Chinese about America, a fact emphasized in Kishore Mahbubani's recent book Has China Won. Prior to the pandemic in 2020, there were roughly 370,000 Chinese students studying in the US compared to around 12,000 American students studying in China. On a per capita basis there were about 7.2 times as many Chinese studying in the United States as the other way around. People in China have gained far more exposure to the history and culture of America in recent decades than the reverse.
In light of the facts, to think that the national discourse is entirely fixated on Donald Trump as some sort of unique evil and the source of all our problems is truly mind-boggling. What Americans need more than ever is a modern-day Fukuzawa Yukichi, someone with the intellectual integrity and humility to point us towards the shifting winds of 21st century civilization. I imagine that such a person would be much like yourself in temperament and knowledge, Glenn.
"In light of the facts, to think that the national discourse is entirely fixated on Donald Trump as some sort of unique evil and the source of all our problems is truly mind-boggling."
I think this partly gets wrong the focus on Trump.
First of all, Trump is sui generis. His greatest talent is to continually feed a media cycle eager to promulgate him. A big part of why the media cycle is fixated on him is because that's just how it works from him.
Second, he is, legitimately, a unique threat, in the sense that 45 men have held the office of the Presidency and exactly one of them - him - has sought to overstay his welcome there via deceit and violence. That he's remained electorally viable following that may say as much about his base as about him, but his re-election would be a validation of his desire to end a system that, all things considered, has served us well for 235 years. It's never been perfect here, we have always been beset by major problems including a Civil War among other things. But, right or wrong, there isn't another country whose legacy I would trade for the US's. Anyway, to dismiss Trump as a threat is to take our country and the system of government that has served us for those 235 years for granted.
Third, is he "the source of all our problems?" No, clearly not. We have had major problems throughout our history, and if the Trump era ends with the republic intact we will have major proalems throughout the rest of our history, too. It is just in the nature of things. But he is a more immediate threat than anything else, and he is a threat to the system that has enabled us to get this far, which makes him existential. He threatens our ability to work through and eventually solve our problems, something that we have been ale to do for 235 years - albeit sometimes very messily - up to now. There is not a problem we have today that Trump's influence helps us to solve.
The thesis that Trump is a threat to the republic is vastly overblown. It's based mostly on the fact that Trump is a provocateur who engages in crude and offensive rhetoric and someone who threw an extended tantrum post the 2020 election culminating in the events of January 6th.
Like Glenn I was also dismayed by what occurred on Jan 6th. A smooth and orderly transition has been the hallmark of American democracy for over 200 years and the transition from Trump to Biden was anything but smooth. Furthermore, Trump's lies about the election being stolen certainly played a role in undermining the legitimacy of the democratic system in the eyes of many Americans. Personally, I was stunned to learn that polling suggests that as many as 40% of Americans don't believe that Biden was legitimately elected in 2020. Candidly, had the Senate voted to impeach Trump after Jan 6th for his behavior I probably would've been fine with that. I'm fairly certain though that had that occurred, we wouldn't have seen any of the four criminal cases that have been brought against him over the past year. In my opinion, these were ultimately a reaction to the realization that Trump had resurrected himself politically post January 6th.
All that being said, I love me some Donald Trump. Trump is the ultimate anti-establishment contrarian and a total badass motherfucker who doesn't give a shit what anyone else thinks. You have to admire and respect that in a politician, especially given the fact that our mainstream politicians are basically whores for big corporations and foreign governments. Like Glenn, I derived a certain sense of joy almost from seeing Trump needle the establishment, both left and right. A big part of me is definitely happy to see that he's back in the game for 2024 and ready to upset the balance of the universe once again, my qualms about January 6th aside.
Much of Trump's negative aura results from the fact that his rhetoric oftentimes overshadows his actions. Trump was routinely derided as an America first president who upended the neoliberal world order and America's established alliances in favor of narrow self-interest. Yet as I noted above, the Biden administration has not only continued many of Trump's policies, but in the case of China also expanded upon them. The breakdown of America's adherence to its professed belief in the primacy of neoliberalism is part of a much broader structural reorientation in response to the changing geopolitical currents of the 21st century, a phenomenon which vastly transcends Trump.
Maybe I'm naive, but I believe that our institutions will ultimately hold against the excesses of Donald Trump. What I'm far less certain about is whether or not the deep structural flaws of the American body politic can survive the shifting winds of 21st century civilization. If you ask me, things like America's unconditional support of Israel to the point of openly threatening the lead prosecutor of the ICC or the American assault upon global semiconductor and EV supply chains are far more deleterious towards the global good than anything Trump has ever done personally, such as having his former lawyer Michael Cohen pay $130,000 in hush money to a pornstar.
Trump may have eroded trust in the legitimacy of American democracy, but at this point I'm too cynical to believe that the republic is in fact all that legitimate to begin with. The notion of America as the city on the hill and the defender of the rules-based international order is probably one of the preeminent delusions of the 21st century.
"The thesis that Trump is a threat to the republic is vastly overblown. It's based mostly on the fact that Trump is a provocateur who engages in crude and offensive rhetoric and someone who threw an extended tantrum post the 2020 election culminating in the events of January 6th."
What is unique about Trump is that he tried to overturn a fair and legitimate election and still claims, despite all evidence to the contrary and no evidence in favor, that the election was "stolen". It was far more than a "tantrum". No other issue comes close in terms of its effect on the rule of law and the US remaining a constitutional democracy. Even if he were perfectly reasonable and correct on all other issues, failing to accept the result of a legitimate election would still disqualify him.
I'm assuming you;re studiously avoiding knowing all the ways in which that election was irregular and very suspicious. And all the information that has come out since. Can anyone really believe that Biden got more votes than Obama, and that it was simple, innocent coincidence that 5 swing states stopped the vote count while Trump was ahead, and miraculously found more votes? Have you ignored the videos of suitcases being taken in to polling places and cardboard attached to windows to stop observers from seeing what was going on? Not aware that ballots were sent to addresses, not voters, and were harvested?
Literally none of the things you listed happened. Or mattered. Either they didn't happen at all, or they were absurdly misinterpreted. Anyone who has knowledge of how elections work (I'm an election worker and work in ballot handling) knows that you can't just bring in suitcases of ballots into an election site and have them counted. There are strict checks to make sure that every ballot counted came from a registered eligible voter. The five states you mention did not stop counting ballots and also passed post-election audits (which you should learn about!) There's no reason why Biden couldn't get more votes than Obama. There are tons of variables between elections that affect total turnout. There were, like, 80 cases filed around the country about supposed fraud, many handled by Trump-appointed judges and not one of them turned out to report a real fraud. I could go on, but what's the point?
What you have written shows that you don't understand how elections actually work. I suggest you go learn about it. It's fascinating! I'm sure that the elections director in your county would be happy to talk to you about the process (I know ours is happy to show people how it works).
If you want to argue this further, take it up with Bill Barr, Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, Mark Esper, John Bolton, Chris Christie, Ben Sasse, Brian Kemp, Brad Raffensperger, Ken Buck, and dozens of other Republicans who KNOW that the election was fair and have the courage to say so.
What you've written shows that you don't understand the anomalies in that election.
Even if you were correct, this election was inarguably rigged by the suppression of the TRUE Hunter Biden laptop story. The contents of that laptop implicates the corrupt " big guy"(bumbling, brain-dead Joe Biden) as well as the others in the Biden crime family in deep corruption. That the American voters were prevented from having that information tainted the election.
"The thesis that Trump is a threat to the republic is vastly overblown."
"All that being said, I love me some Donald Trump."
Well that says a lot. I mean, I cannot envision anyone who "loves them some Donald Trump" also beliving he is a threat to the republic. Unless one opposes the republic I guess.
"Trump is the ultimate anti-establishment contrarian and a total badass motherfucker who doesn't give a shit what anyone else thinks. You have to admire and respect that in a politician."
I think this is a correct statement about Trump but it is not a good thing. To the extent that Trump has WWE-ified our politics, such that it is more reality-TV ish than before (see the partisan battling in House hearings for example), I think it is awful. I don't think it makes any of our problems better.
I see Trump as both uniquely fueled by and uniquely able to drive grievance politics, and grievance politics are bad. Everyone, at least to some degree, loves to see someone they dislike get told where to shove it, but that isn't a basis for governance.
This discussion is focused on What GOOD things do you expect of Trump in his second term? He's proposing higher tariffs, which you seem not to like. You've noted that he'll adopt some positions (TikTok sale) based on what he views as his personal and political interests. We seem to disagree on grivance politics (you either view them as positive or don't see Trump as a driver of them). But what good things do you expect him to do?
"What I'm far less certain about is whether or not the deep structural flaws of the American body politic can survive the shifting winds of 21st century civilization. "
How will Trump and not hurt in that regard?
" If you ask me, things like America's unconditional support of Israel and the US assault upon global semiconductor and EV supply chains are far more deleterious towards the global good than anything Trump has ever done personally."
Trump is a critic of Biden from the pro-Israel side and from the pro-free trade etx side. The things Biden has done that you don't approve of, Trump is likely to try to do more of, or at least to claim that he will do more of.
"The idea that America is the city on the hill and the defender of the rules-based international order is probably one of the preeminent delusions of the 21st century."
I think America has made some grievous mistakes on the world stage over the past 2-3 decades. (Really throughout its entire involvement on the stage since the founding, but the past 2-3 decades have been particularly awful in terms of unforced errors. Still, the shift back towards a less safe, more protectionist, less driven by rules-based international order and more driven by the terroririal mbitions of various strongmen is... not a positive move in my view.
In my comments here, I've drawn a distinction between the culture wars and geopolitical issues such as Israel, China, trade, etc. On the big geopolitical issues, I'm mostly resigned to the fact of political inertia. Whether Biden or Trump gets reelected in 2024 matters relatively little in my opinion when it comes to issues of global geopolitics, except perhaps at the margins. For instance, whereas Trump threatened to raise tariffs on Chinese EVs to 100% from 25% should he be reelected, Biden went ahead and actually did that recently. There are deep structural flaws in the American political system that make it very difficult for America to course correct. While I don't expect much from either candidate on these matters, at least Trump holds the wildcard of anti-establishment unpredictability. Perhaps he'll surprise us and actually drain the swamp so to speak. As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Trump is unequivocally superior to Biden though when it comes to the culture war issues that are often discussed here and in other parts of the heterodox community. I feel confident in stating that the pushback against political correctness, DEI, and the erosion of the meritocracy is far more likely to bear fruit under a Trump administration as opposed to a Biden one. Remember when the courts ruled against the Biden administration's attempts to prioritize Covid loans for small businesses based on race?
My perspective is ultimately one of resigned cynicism. Trump is simply the lesser of two evils, although as I've stated he certainly possesses many attributes that I admire. Personally, I don't foresee a great future for this country barring a major structural reorientation that seems increasingly unlikely to occur. What we need now more than ever is a modern-day Fukuzawa Yukichi, someone who can decipher the shifting winds of 21st century civilization and steer the American ship towards the path of prosperity. I'm not holding my breath though.
1. I think the notable failures of neoliberalism in the 21st century tainted it and it is going to take some time before we try again. Trump is an avowed opponent of it, and Biden was in politics before it and is somewhat of an opponent of it from that perspective. And political support for neoliberalism is an an ebb - the MAGA base and the left part of the Dem base aren't in favor. I don't think that is a good thing, but it is where the country is today.
2. The notion that Trump will "drain the swamp" is laughale to me. To the extent that he has an agenda at all, I think it is mostly about personal enrichment. He wants not to *drain* the swamp but to bend it to his will.
3. I disagree that Trump is superior to Biden on culture war issues. I think culture wars by their nature cannot be won. There is push and pull, there is backlash ,and then backlash to the backlash, and then backlash to that. Trump will fuel, not tamp down, culture wars. Bringing culture wars to the forefront of our politics as Trump has helped to do has made it difficult for other important government functions to be done.
Michael you can have your own opinion and we can differ on interpretation of events but we both should agree to respect the facts. Bragg absolutely made this a campaign pledge. Here is just one example:
https://youtu.be/iQLflgGxUrU?si=lpZ4zkue65iA2rc8
Is it uncouth for a politician to pledge to prosecute a crime or correct a perceived in justice?
If some drunk driver crashed through our beloved statue of Jebediah Springfield and I ran for office on putting him behind bars, would that be inappropriate?
Seems pretty status quo to me.
It is uncouth to run for political office pledging to jail your political opponents if you win—it is also I believe unconstitutional.
Trump started that game in 2016.
When exactly did Trump as president—in the only elected political office he has held—prosecute his political enemies? To my knowledge, this has not occurred even once. Moreover, the Democrats started a campaign of lawfare and undermining Trump’s capacity govern from day one. These actions were not preceded by similar or comparable efforts by Trump. Indeed, while it certainly seems appropriate to question some of his policy choices—deciding, e.g., to impose tariffs on China or even some of his immigration policies—the only major transgression by Trump was not accepting the outcome of the 2020 elections. While denying the election results was certainly a questionable tactic, he did leave office after the election was officially ratified. Does he believe he really won—who knows? But Al Gore and most Democrats still believe that the 2000 election was stolen by GW Bush—this sentiment was voiced for decades. So election denial is a bipartisan sport.
100% agree with that. This exchange in 2016 scared the shit out of me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5cnrp5UNnA
If Trump goes to jail, that's BS and I'll be marching in the streets too.
Jail time doesn't seem likely though. Also I'm not sure I'd consider Bragg and Trump rivals. Biden is the rival and he is sensibly staying well clear of all this.
Biden seems to be trying to stay well clear of all this, which I respect.
We learned in this podcast there was a juror whose "sole source of news was Truth Social." Looks like a false memory from a TDS patient.
From Forbes:
'As prosecutors and Trump's defense attorneys worked to pick the 18 people selected as jurors and alternates, the potential jurors were each asked a series of questions that included an inquiry into which media they consume most often and where they get their news—one person, juror No. 2, selected Trump-owned social media platform Truth Social as a source, according to the New York Times.
'Since then, commentators on both sides of the aisle have referred to the juror as someone who uses Truth Social and have largely assumed he’s a likely pro-Trump vote on the jury (Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz tweeted "LFG Juror #2!" and the Citizen Free Press called it "Good news for Trump"), but notes from trial pool reporters suggest the juror doesn’t personally use Truth Social.
"That same juror selected one other source of news on the questionnaire—Elon Musk's X, formerly known as Twitter—and courtroom pool reporters from the third day of jury selection reported he told the court he only follows Truth Social posts “via X.”
'The juror also reported he follows Michael Cohen, the attorney at the center of Trump’s trial, on X and the "Mueller, She Wrote" podcast, an investigative podcast about Russian meddling in the 2016 election hosted by a woman who later claimed she was fired from her Veterans Affairs job because her podcast was critical of Trump.
'When asked about following Cohen on X, the man said he also follows former Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway and "other figures on both sides," according to pool reporters.'
The idea that jury decisions are unquestionable and pure as the driven snow died when the O.J. jury allowed a murderer to go free as "payback."
Like them or not, jury decisions are how guilt and innoence are adjudicated in this country and should be given some degree of deference as a result of that. By no means do I think jury verdicts are inflallible, but they are what we have.
OJ's murder trial was a classic example of jury nullification. The evidence against OJ was and is overwhelming (as the civil jury that heard the Brown family's civil wrongful death suit against OJ would conclude), but the jury said "eff it" and acquitted him anyway. Depending on who you talk to and what the context is, you will get different opinions on jury nullification, but it is a thing that exists and sometimes happens.
As a general matter, I think juries and jurors take their roles seriously. Of all of the problems I think our criminal justice system has, I would put juries pretty low on the list.
Mr. Cohen needs to have spent a little time learning about the Trump felony case. The charges were totally invented by Bragg. Even assuming that the Trump organization falsely recorded the hush money it would not have been a felony—if convicted it would have been a misdemeanor. However, the records charge has passed the statute of limitations. Bragg resurrected the charge to use a law that says if a misdemeanor was committed to cover a crime it could be tried as a felony. However, it required multiple instances in order to qualify. Bragg used an unheard of methodology—he counted every check for ms. Daniels as a misdemeanor in order to show that he was attempting to cover a crime. What was the crime? Well that is still unclear since Bragg and the presiding judge did not require the prosecution to specifically specify the underlying crime Trump was charged with. Instead, he essentially argued that the jury could use its imagination to find its own crime and the jury was not required to come to a unanimous decision on the underlying crime committed. This is unconstitutional.
I'm reasonably certain that if the Senate had voted to impeach Trump after Jan 6th and therefore precluded him from being able to run for president again that none of these cases would've been brought against him. Regardless of the underlying merits of this particular case, Alvin Bragg had considerable prosecutorial discretion as Glenn alluded to. In my opinion, these cases were more or less a response to the realization that not only was Trump not permanently damaged by the events of Jan 6th, but that somewhat perversely those events actually helped to bolster his popularity and put him in prime position to win reelection in 2024.
I find the particular case brought by Alvin Bragg to be especially ironic given that Trump was accused of trying to illegally influence the 2016 election. I suppose the voters will render their final judgment on Election Day. Viva democracy!
"I'm reasonably certain that if the Senate had voted to impeach Trump after Jan 6th and therefore precluded him from being able to run for president again that none of these cases would've been brought against him."
Strong disagree. Even out of office, Trump has a certain amount of political power as a result of his potential to be reelected. I think the all cases against him would have moved more quickly if he had been disqualified by the Senate.
I think he could have avoided the classified documents case at any time up to the execution of the search warrant by cooperating. The Jan 6 charges and probably the NY charge were coming regardless.
"The charges were totally invented by Bragg."
They were not.
"Even assuming that the Trump organization falsely recorded the hush money it would not have been a felony—if convicted it would have been a misdemeanor."
Under NY law, falsification of business records is a misdemeanor, while falsification of business records with the intent to commit or cover up another crime is a felony. Trump was charged with the latter.
You can disagree with the criminal statutes of Ney York all you want, but the fact remains, Trump was charged with felony based on NY criminal statutes.
"However, the records charge has passed the statute of limitations. Bragg resurrected the charge to use a law that says if a misdemeanor was committed to cover a crime it could be tried as a felony. "
The misdemeanor charge had passed the statute of limitations; the felony had not. As you note, that was the law.
"However, it required multiple instances in order to qualify. "
As far as I'm aware, this is not actually true. He could have made one charge, or three, or 11, or more than 34 (he did not charge every applicable document, several doucments entered into evidence could have been charged but were not.
Did Bragg run up the number of charges? Probably. But this is in no way an unheard of practice among prosecutors.
"What was the crime? Well that is still unclear since Bragg and the presiding judge did not require the prosecution to specifically specify the underlying crime Trump was charged with. "
That is false. here's how it worked:
1. The crime charged was the felony version of falsifying business records.
2. The elements of that crime were 1) falsifying business records 2) with intent to commit or conceal another crime.
3. The "other crime" given to the jury was a single NY statue that made it illegal to influence an election by unlawful means.
To find Trump guilty, the jury needed to find, unanimously, that Trump falsified business records with the intent to influence an election through unlawful means.
Where the judge did not require unanimity was on what the "unlawful means" were. The prosecution presented 3 theories of what they could have been, and the jurors did not need to unanimously agree on a single means. The judge based the decision not to require unanimity on unlawful means on state precedent.
"Instead, he essentially argued that the jury could use its imagination to find its own crime and the jury was not required to come to a unanimous decision on the underlying crime committed."
In no way whatsoever did the prosecution argue anything remotely like "use your imagination to find your own crime." Unanimity was required on the specific statues that were the basis of Trump's conviction.
All of that said, it's a decent argument for Trump to make on appeal, though I would not expect him to win on it, he might.
Michael your response to my comments simply confirms the points I tried to make. This was a political trial. Bragg ran on the pledge to find a crime to get Trump. This trial could have been carried out in the former USSR, the current Russia or communist China.
Not only did Bragg did not pledge to find a crime to get Trump, he did not move forward with the investigations of Trump that his predecessor started, causing a couple of prosecutors in his office to angrily resign.
Until Trump announced he was running, then Bragg pressed forward. Telling.
Not really. There was a big financial crimes investigation of Trump that Bragg ended, much to the dismay of some prosecutors in his office.
If Bragg's goal was merelty to get Trump on trial, he did not pursue every avenue and even turned away from some.
What crime was trump convicted that he tried to cover up?
As I feel pretty sure you know, the 34 convictions Trump received last week were his first. But the law he was convicted of did not require prior conviction, and I did not reporesent in my post that he had prior convictions.
so where was his due process for the criminal charges he was convicted of covering up. Or is the opinion of a prosecutor that a defendant committed a prior crime enough for you?
Not the "opinion" of a prosecutor, but the verdict of a jury after hearing the evidence is what is ":enough" for me..
Okay, what crime was he trying to cover up that he was convicted of prior to last week?
A few initial thoughts ... I am amazed not at the conversation itself, but at two different versions of reality. That Trump should be held accountable for committing crimes, sure. But that ignores 1) Biden prosecutor Robert Hur effectively saying "yes Biden committed crimes, but he is old and confused so we won't even consider prosecuting."; Hilary Clinton destroyed a server that contained classified documents that were under subpoena as evidence to her committing a crime, and James Comer simply saying "yeah, we'll just let this one go."; 3) Also Hillary violating federal election law with the whole fabricated and paid for "Steele Dossier", complete with an assist from federal agencies and the press (I think she FINED $8,000 for that felony). This all ignores that the judge in the Trump trial violated state law presiding over his case as a Democrat party donor. And, still not clear on what those 34 felonies were, decided perhaps piecemeal separately by some or all of the jury (I've sat on 7 criminal juries and was always told it is either unanimous or it is done, not that some people can agree on one thing, a few on different things, and we will just sort of add it all up afterwards and see what we get). I can't understand how one can say "Trump broke the law and must face the consequences" and yet be fine (presumably) about all those others (Biden, Clinton X 2, Merchan ... I could go on!). Unless, again, different reality.
And the Trump racism points? Check out the link below. Biden was on public record many times acting in ways that I think even polite company could easily define as racist. The link below is just one of many examples .. that one from NBC (not a hard right outlet by my estimation!) discussing Biden's venomous opposition to school integration. I won't repeat the quotes Biden made on public record. Joe spoke at one of his former mentor, Robert Byrd's (at one point an extremely high ranking dirtball in the KKK) funeral. During both the Obama campaign, and multiple times during his own campaign and Presidency, he has spouted off-the-cuff highly offensive race-oriented statements, including suggesting that one non-white speaker was on crack (not in a joking manner). Yet, again, in a parallel universe, Biden is a "good hearted, kindly, gently man" and Trump is a lowlife racist.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/joe-biden-didn-t-just-compromise-segregationists-he-fought-their-n1021626
I am not surprised that very smart and informed people dislike Trump. There are all kinds of people I dislike who others love and vice versa. I am shocked that many of those same smart and informed people presumably live in a parallel universe where things that actually occurred were apparently different.
There are a lot of factual inaccuracies here.
For years, our legal system has given kid gloves treatment to high level officials who commit classified document offenses. Biden could have been charged, but a conviction of him was very unlikely for several reasons beyond the one you mention, the most important of them being that when the documents were brought to his attention, he turned them over and consented to FBI searches of his properties.
If you look at the whole history of charging senior officials with retention of classified documents, there is basically no one charged and convicted who gave the stuff back when asked. Why was Trump charged and iden not? From the Hur report:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf
"Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation."
so illegally taking the documents as a senator, sharing some with a ghost writer, keeping them in the garage and such all goes away because he returned them and cooperated?
Not only because he returned them and cooperated, but that is a huge part of it. I think the DOJ's evidence regarding the most severe potential charge (dissemination to the ghost writer) was insufficient. I think Trump avoid his own dissemination charge for the same reason.
You could also say that the DOJ cooperated with Biden. Biden had some documents for 10 years; the DOJ didn't appear to care until they went after Trump. Why didn't the DOJ demand documents back in 2016?
Do you remember what started DOJ's investigation into Biden? It was started by a specific event.
You could also also say the DOJ mixed up evidence during and after the Mar a Lago, prepared for an armed attack on Trump (and his secret service protectors), and rifled through his wife's personal belongings. And that Trump had the right to hold (what Trump claimed) were unclassified docs in a fortress whereas Biden, as former VP and Senator, had no authority to hold them in bank boxes in his garage. But again, different universes. And if we are all being honest here: it Trump was a Democrat and running for office none of this ever would have occurred and he would be enjoying his second term right now.
and brought CLASSIFIED folders for a nifty photo op!
"prepared for an armed attack on Trump (and his secret service protectors)"
This is a ludicrous lie disseminated by Trump and right wing media. Facts:
1. Every operation undertaken by the FBI includes a use of policy, the purpose of which is to place limitations on the authorization to use deadly force.
2. The use of force policy used in executing the Maralago search warrant was consistent with the FBI's general guidelines for use of force and the same policy was in force for the FBI's voluntary searches of Biden's properties.
3. The timing of the search of Maralago was set up so that the search would be conducted while Trump and his family were away to minimize any potential for a confrontation.
4. The search was coordinated with the members of Trump's secret service detail who were at Maralago at the time to further minimize any confrontations.
5. Trump's lawyer made a disingenous claim in a legal filing and right wing media picked up and circulated this nonsensical claim.
"And that Trump had the right to hold (what Trump claimed) were unclassified docs in a fortress whereas Biden, as former VP and Senator, had no authority to hold them in bank boxes in his garage. "
False. Trump, AS PRESIDENT, had the authority to send classified documents to Maralago - and he was not actually charged with that. Trump as former President did not have the right to possess classified documents. Biden, in his years out of office, did not have the right to have classified documents either. But, very much unlike Trump, he gave them back when they were found.
Hur report:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf
"Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation."
Trump, BTW, has yet to sit for a voluntary interview (or to testify) regarding any of the crimes he has been charged with. It is his right to remain silent, of course.
This is a ludicrous lie disseminated by Biden and the left wing media.
See how that works? We are learning together.
So you honestly, truly, believe that the FBI were there that day not to execute a search warrant but to commit an assassination? I'll hang up and listen.
On Trump. Yeah, to deny a politically motivated trial and claim "nobody is above the law" while simultaneously noting that that the explicit statements by Bragg to go after Trump while failing to prosecute large numbers of criminals in NYC. And to ignore that Clinton (emails) & Biden (classified documents in his garage for many years) both seem to be "above the law".
On Gaza. It *is* ugly. But to say "it's unacceptable" without providing an "acceptable" solution seems naive. I'm not sure there is one that Joshua would find "acceptable"; I think we often must settle for the "least bad". I keep going back to 1945 and asking "was what the Allies did to finish German and Japan 'acceptable'?" Of course, I think that's a rhetorical question with the answer being "YES". Should have we turned on the USSR in Jan 1945 when it was obvious what the Red Army was doing in Eastern Europe? There wasn't an "acceptable" way to end WW-II.
And to say "Well, this [eliminate Hamas] isn't going to happen, we should stop trying". is likely a self-fulfilling prophecy. Where would we be if that argument was made about Japan in 1945 (they seemed pretty fanatical & willing to fight to the death). And why are those arguments always one-sided, where is the "Israel is not going to stop in Gaza, you should stop trying to undercut them?"
On Rawls. Too long of a topic. I like the idea of a "veil of ignorance". I strongly disagree with his conclusions (they don't seem what a rational person would conclude).
On a personal note: Glenn, yeah, I generally disagree with you on Gaza. And I wish you had more people on the other side on your show. But it's OK. You keep speaking your mind!
> And to ignore that Clinton (emails) & Biden (classified documents in his garage for many years) both seem to be "above the law".
Part of what DOJ evalautes when deciding whether to file charges is the likelihood of obtaining and maintaining (through appeal) a conviction. In the case of both Clinton and Biden, there wasn't a winnable case there for DOJ. What politically-motivated-by-Trump prosecution did have a winnale case? The prosecution of Hunter Biden. And jury selection for Hunter's trial began today.
Those things are all true. But the more complex it gets, the more "no one is above the law" starts to sound a little hollow. Apparently, Alvin Bragg thought he *could* get a conviction. And in Manhattan, which Biden won by SEVENTY-FOUR points, that's pretty much a slam-dunk.
Do you think high officials should be allowed to break the law with no fear of consequences?
Do you think juries should be politically vetted? Should Democrats charged with crimes in red states be allowed to have juries of Democrats?
These seem like weak straw-man questions.
It appears that Clinton was certainly allowed to break the law with no fear of consequences. So there is a precedent.
If a black man is convicted by an all-white jury, that raises questions. Do you really suggest that the average white person hates blacks more than the average Manhattanite hates Trump?
I’m quite surprised by the points put forward by Josh regarding Trump and Biden. He seemed to be holding back quite a bit, my guess is either lack of preparedness or respect for Glenn, but this is the sort of stuff I hear from run of the mill democrats. To suggest that the Trump trial was not politically motivated is just disingenuous, particularly for a man as esteemed as Josh.
If any Democrats say no one is above the law I say great, I agree. Now let’s go and prosecute Biden, Biden’s son, Hillary, Obama et al. If that happened I would have no problem with Trump being prosecuted for such nonsense, but it won’t and it’s the double standards on EVERYTHING that people are so sick of!
Also to say you like Biden means you haven’t paid attention to the man.
For decades now he has played on the death of his wife and kids. He’s played on the death of his other son. He’s protecting his junkie son. He pushed a crime bill because he didn’t want ‘a racial jungle’, he patronizes blacks even today by saying ‘if you don’t vote for me you ain’t black’ and showing up at a black family home with a bucket of fried chicken. For gods sake how can anyone say this is a decent or likable man?!
I regularly step back and look at things and sometimes even ask people if I have been captured by Trump and the Republican Party. The answer always comes back as no.
Biden has been used as a puppet by Obama and the ‘squad’ who have extreme left policies. They don’t believe in them, they just know that they can use them to get votes. I have no sympathy for him or his wife who is happy to parade her husband around, knowing full well that he has cognitive issues, and letting him be the president of the United States, for goodness sake.
I am sick and tired of the present day culture which normalizes this utter corruption.
Please don't forget he's on video BRAGGING about using blackmail to get a prosecutor looking into Hunter's Burisma payola. No consequences...
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4820105/user-clip-biden-tells-story-ukraine-prosecutor-fired
You are conflating two separate issues: 1) Did Trump commit a crime? and 2) Would this crime have been prosecuted had it not been Trump?
Political influence could be an explanation for why the case was brought, but it remains true that the jury found him guilty, and so he is, by the standards we use to adjudicate this in this country, guilty. He will appeal, and he has a few decent arguments but nothing guaranteed to prevail.
As a candidate for President in 2016 Trump advocated that his political enemies should be targeted for prosecution. As the President, he oversaw a DOJ that targeted his political opponents for prosecution. Before he left office, his AG appointed 2 of his DOJ officials to inviestigate his political opponents. Biden's AG, Merrick Garland, allowed those investigations to continue, but they were begin in and by the Trump Administration.
As a result of one of those investigations, two people involved in the Clinton campaign were put on trial. However, the cases against them were weak and thery were acquitted. Clinton herself was not charged because there wasn't a credible case against her.
As a result of the other of those investigations, Hunter Biden went on trial today. Hunter is very likely to be convicted because, like Trump, he is almost certainly guilty of the crime he was charged with. But the crime he was charged with (lying on a gun purchase form that he was not a drug addict/user) is almost never charged against anyone. Like Trump, he'll be convicted because he is guilty, but also like Trump, he'll be convicted because he was targeted. Hunter is also facing some rarely used tax charges in another jurisdiction).
Why was Joe never charged? Because he's law abiding. All of the digging for dirt about him turned up nothing. Not breaking the law in the first is a good way to avoid a political prosecution.
"Why was Joe never charged? Because he's law abiding. "
I thought charges were not brought on the documents because Biden is so mentally impaired a jury would be reluctant to convict him. Weird logic, but that's what Robert Hur testified to.
It is complicated.
It is DOJ practice to generally not bring charged unless a conviction could be obtained and sustained (ie, on appeal). There are a lot of reasons to think that Biden could not have been convicted.
The big ones for me are that 1) Presidents and VPs have been allowed some leniency and 2) willful retention crimes have historically been charged against people who refused to return classified materials when asked. On top of that, the evidence supporting the worst evidence against Biden (dissemination to his ghost writer) was circumstantial. Hur would have asked the jury to infer that when Biden, in his then home in VA, said "I just found the classified stuff downstairs" he was referring specifically to the documents that were later found in his Delaware garage. He would have had strong arguments to make to any jury and according to Hur would likely have come across well as a witness and the jury would not have held memory lapses against him.
Consider also the dissemination charge that was NOT brought against Trump. The indictment alleges that, in a meeting with Mark Meadows' ghost writer, Trump talked aout having a classified document with plans for a US attack against Iran, which he claimed was written by then Chair of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley. This meeting was recorded, and you can hear Trump boasting about havig the document, saying it was classified. You can even hear papers rustling as Trump speaks. That seems like some pretty strong evidence that Trump was showing off classified documents, but DOJ did not charge Trump with dissemination? Why not? One possible reason is that they did not have the full chain of evidence needed to make that charge stick. They may not have had the actual document at issue, they may not have had a witness who could verify that that particular document is the one Trump has on that tape. Without those, Trump's defense could argue that no crime had been proven, itcould all have been all just boasting. Anyway, Biden's dissemination has the same issue as Trump's.
So you are retracting your statement that Biden wasn't charged because "he's law-abiding." Okay, now we're on the same page.
I think he could somewhat reasonably have been charged with dissemination, but he would never have been convicted of it, even if he were somehow 20 years younger with perfect memory.
Wasn't Biden a senator when he brought some classified materials home?
But when Biden committed his crime he wasn't mentally impaired yet.
Regarding the question of whether Trump committed a crime. Using the fact that a jury found him guilty is a little disingenuous. Taken on its own then of course a jury of your peers is a good standard. However that ignores as you know the large number of precedents that the judge broke in the trial, not to mention the fact that the judge also contributed financially to a group whose stated mission is to ‘stop Trump’. That alone would show clear bias and he didn’t recuse himself because apparently the officiating body deemed it unnecessary. That doesn’t mean the bias wasn’t there.
Now let’s step back even further; every legal expert I have heard, including people not on Trumps side like Alan Dershowitz and Bill Barr have all said this trial was ridiculous and just not a crime.
So a jury found him guilty but guilty of what? Nobody seems to know and I believe legally you have to tell the defendant what crime they’re committing.
I think we can agree that prosecuting political opponents is bad for the country?
"However that ignores as you know the large number of precedents that the judge broke in the trial, not to mention the fact that the judge also contributed financially to a group whose stated mission is to ‘stop Trump’. That alone would show clear bias and he didn’t recuse himself because apparently the officiating body deemed it unnecessary. "
The judge did not break a large number of precedents, and according to NY practice was not required to recuse. And his rulings during the trial were not one-sided.
I think part of the reason why Trump was convicted is that he interfered with his lawyers' ability to put forward his best defense.
"Would this crime have been prosecuted had it not been Trump?"
Can you define - specifically, in the court, at this trial - what crime the jury found him guilty of?
They found him guilty of falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal anorther crime. Specifically, that he intended to violate a NY statute that prohibits interference with an election by unlawful means.
The second statute, the one that allowed the flasifying business records to be charged as a felony, was Section 17-152 of NY election law. The jury unanimouly agreed that the falsification of bisiness recods was done with intent to violate NY 17-152.
"The jury unanimously agreed that the falsification of business records was done with intent to violate NY 17-152."
The jury had to agree to the intent to violate NY 17-152 by "unlawful means". What "unlawful means" the jury found was used?
“No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge,” the Supreme Court stated in Cole v. Arkansas (1948), “and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, [is] among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal.” In in re Winship (1970), the justices affirmed that “the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” These three due-process precepts—notice, meaningful opportunity to defend, and proof of all elements—were absent in Mr. Trump’s trial.
The state offense with which Mr. Trump was indicted, “falsifying business records,” requires proof of an “intent to defraud.” To elevate this misdemeanor to a felony, the statute requires proof of “intent to commit another crime.” In People v. Bloomfield (2006), the state’s highest court observed that “intent to commit another crime” is an indispensable element of the felony offense.
New York courts have concluded that the accused need not be convicted of the other crime since an “intent to commit” it is sufficient to satisfy the statute. But because that intent is, in the words of Winship, “a fact necessary to constitute the crime,” it is an element of felony falsification. Due process requires that the defendant receive timely notice of the other crime he allegedly intended to commit. It also requires that he have opportunity to defend against that accusation and that prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt his intent to commit it.
Mr. Trump’s indictment didn’t specify the other crime he allegedly intended to commit. Prosecutors didn’t do so during the trial either. Only after the evidentiary phase of the trial did Judge Juan Merchan reveal that the other crime was Section 17-152 of New York’s election law, which makes it a misdemeanor to engage in a conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-trial-violated-due-process-76fae047