Comment by rayiner
3 months ago
That would be a valid argument if the prosecutions against Trump didn’t involve legal gymnastics like the ones Google uses to make all their profits appear to have been earned in Ireland: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-...
That was widely acknowledged as the weakest of 3 or 4 criminal investigations against Trump. He managed to stall the others.
> That was widely acknowledged as the weakest of 3 or 4 criminal investigations against Trump.
1) It's the case that was given the most attention by far (and furthered a persecution narrative that probably helped Trump). 2) The existence of other prosecutions does not excuse one that was done selectively and improperly.
> It's the case that was given the most attention by far
Because as I already said
>> He managed to stall the others
That case was a bit weird and motivated. Weird in the same way as the prosecution of Hunter Biden for lying about drug taking when getting a gun license, but weird nonetheless.
What wasn't weird were the other cases that didn't complete before Trump was re-elected and ended them.
He certainly did try to directly ask for votes 'to be found'(the Georgia case), overturn the previous election with Jan6 and his general rhetoric(the DC case), and steal and conceal boxes of classified material (the Florida case)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_election_racketeering_...
The issue isn’t “motivated” prosecutions, it’s prosecutors engaging in creative lawyering as if they’re corporate lawyers trying to structure an international company’s finances to evade taxes. Trump paid off a pornstar with his own company’s money to keep her from talking about an affair. That’s not illegal. It was only turned into felonies through a triple bank shot that combined a misdemeanor with multiple uncharged and unproven crimes, in what MSNBC’s legal analyst called a “grotesque legal version of Frankenstein’s monster.” https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-guilty-hus...
The prosecution against Hunter Biden, by contrast, was legally uncreative. The federal paperwork for gun purchases asks: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” Biden wrote a book about how he was addicted to drugs during the same time he answered “no” to this question in buying a gun. Lying on a federal form is a felony under 18 USC 1001. It’s a slam dunk, mundane prosecution that required zero creative lawyering.
Pointing to the other cases against Trump doesn’t undo the egregious abuse of the New York criminal prosecution. If even CNN’s legal analyst has to admit that Democrat prosecutors “contorted the law” to prosecute Trump, why should anyone believe their characterizations of the other cases?