President Bush wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 2:06 amHard to imagine anything more trivial than attempting to prevent wealthy and powerful people from using their businesses to commit crimes and hide from accountability.
I find it hard to think of anything more trivial.
Who's the victim? What harm was done, and to whom?
I predict many more commentaries very much like those of sparks and President Bush in the months to come. "Who cares what he did? He's a felon!"
Well, it is true that he is a felon, and it is also true that that is not trivial. However, what Musk was getting at, and that I echoed, was that the actions of Donald Trump were, in his opinion and mine, trivial. Never mind whether they were criminal. They were insignificant. Of course, they have had very significant consequences to Trump himself, but did they have significant consequences to anyone else?
I don't really expect an answer, here or in most of the public and media discussion. It's a rather inconvenient question. However, it will be floated about, and an awful lot of people will weigh in on that, and related subjects. Meanwhile a huge number of Democrats and allies will want to say that since he's a convicted felon, he is obviously unsuitable to be President, and when that argument is unpersuasive, they will insult the people who disagree.
I don't know how it will play out, legally or politically. I just know what Trump did in this case. He paid a couple of women to shut up about his unseemly sexual conduct, and he called that money "legal expenses" on his business records. For me, that's a big yawn. I don't care.
In one other case against him, he is accused of plotting to overturn legitimate election results. Now, in that case, that's a huge frickin' deal to me. It's downright unforgivable. In my opinion, it makes him completely unfit for office and it saddens me that anyone would vote for someone who did it.
By the way, I don't know, or care, whether what he did was criminal. That's not the point. It was despicable, quite apart from the question of whether, in doing what he did, he managed to stay on the good side of the legal boundary between criminal versus just awful.
In the case just completed, I don't see anything awful. Criminal? At least until the appeals are over, it would appear so. I still don't see anything awful in what he did in this case. Maybe I'm missing something.
ETA: He has been convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors at this point, even committed while he was in office. Another impeachment maybe? That worked out so well the last two times.
President Bush wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 2:06 amHard to imagine anything more trivial than attempting to prevent wealthy and powerful people from using their businesses to commit crimes and hide from accountability.
Meadmaker wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 5:54 am
I predict many more commentaries very much like those of sparks and President Bush in the months to come. "Who cares what he did? He's a felon!"
President Bush wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 2:06 amHard to imagine anything more trivial than attempting to prevent wealthy and powerful people from using their businesses to commit crimes and hide from accountability.
I find it hard to think of anything more trivial.
Who's the victim? What harm was done, and to whom?
... generally falsifying private business records is a misdemeanor. It becomes a felony only if, as the jury found here, the actions are used to cover up or conceal a crime.
In this case, the jury may well have been persuaded by the prosecution’s argument that the crime covered up was essentially a scheme to defraud the American people by concealing information about the character and conduct of a presidential candidate.
President Bush wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 2:06 amHard to imagine anything more trivial than attempting to prevent wealthy and powerful people from using their businesses to commit crimes and hide from accountability.
Meadmaker wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 5:54 am
I predict many more commentaries very much like those of sparks and President Bush in the months to come. "Who cares what he did? He's a felon!"
Pretty much the opposite of what I said.
Maybe I misunderstood then.
Here's what you said: "Hard to imagine anything more trivial than attempting to prevent wealthy and powerful people from using their businesses to commit crimes and hide from accountability."
The only thing that you mentioned that Trum did is "commit crimes".
I characterized that as "Who cares what he did? He's a felon!"
Both statements seem to be saying that the fact that he committed a crime* is the bad thing, and it doesn't matter the specifics of the crime. I don't think I'm being unfair in my characterization of your statement.
*Assumed for the sake of argument, based on conviction at trial.
Last edited by Meadmaker on Mon Jun 03, 2024 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
" the crime covered up was essentially a scheme to defraud the American people by concealing information about the character and conduct of a presidential candidate."
President Bush wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 2:06 amHard to imagine anything more trivial than attempting to prevent wealthy and powerful people from using their businesses to commit crimes and hide from accountability.
Meadmaker wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 5:54 am
I predict many more commentaries very much like those of sparks and President Bush in the months to come. "Who cares what he did? He's a felon!"
Pretty much the opposite of what I said.
Maybe I misunderstood then.
Here's what you said: "Hard to imagine anything more trivial than attempting to prevent wealthy and powerful people from using their businesses to commit crimes and hide from accountability."
The only thing that you mentioned that Trum did is "commit crimes".
I characterized that as "Who cares what he did? He's a felon!"
Sure thing. Ciao.
President Bush wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 2:06 amHard to imagine anything more trivial than attempting to prevent wealthy and powerful people from using their businesses to commit crimes and hide from accountability.
I see tons of videos and articles since Thursday with people piously declaring their support for the rule of law and the sanctity of the jury system.
I wonder if they've given any thought to the fact that the appeals system is every bit as much a part of that rule of law as is the jury system.
Somehow, if Trumps's conviction is overturned, I don't think those same people will be saying, "The legal system has rendered a verdict. Donald Trump is innocent.
I don't know if the verdict will be overturned. I just know that I've seen an awful lot of lawyers talking about this case saying it will be. What I am extremely confident of is that the celebrations are a bit premature. This case isn't over.
Mead says: "Well, it is true that he is a felon, and it is also true that that is not trivial. However, what Musk was getting at, and that I echoed, was that the actions of Donald Trump were, in his opinion and mine, trivial. "
A perfect example of cognitive dissonance.
It's either trivial or it is not trivial Mead. Which the fuck is it in your mind?
His actions, which were not trivial, led to his conviction as a felon. Again not trivial. You can't separate the two which is what you and your buddy Elon seem to be trying to do.
