Trump Just Committed These 'New Crimes' in New York

[blackchubby38]

The guy who was Trump's long-time fixer (how many legitimate people need fixers?!) and went to prison for him?

Yeah, that's him.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Yeah, that's him.

What would he gain by lying? He already did time for Trump.

[natina]

trump-indicted-in-manhattan-heres-what-will-happen-next-yes-hell-probably-get-a-mugshot


https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisond...-get-a-mugshot

[Stavros]

There have been many attempts to reform. The Republicans have killed the most recent ones in Congress.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wo...gerrymandering

The Constitution is set up so it can be modified without revolution. The extremes ignore that, and they get all the airtime, apparently overseas as well. Plenty Americans (myself included) belong to no political party, have no interest in joining one, and do not desire a civil war.

Thanks for the Brennan Center link, though it makes depressing reading. I now vaguely recall the debate though it was mostly about the Filibuster. I think the key is to take these decisions on District Boundaries out of the State control and create a completely Independent Commission, because neither of the two major parties can be trusted, and trust in institutions is vital in a democracy.

[Stavros]

I could see his lawyers filing a motion for a change of venue to either Long Island or Staten Island, both areas are filled with Trump voters/supporters.

Having said that, I think he could get a fair trial in New York. There were people in NYC who voted for him in 2016 and if I could find the article that I posted on here, I think that number increased in 2020. That's surprising when you consider New Yorkers have been putting up with his bullshit since the 1980s'. So I'm sure his legal team could fill a jury with some people who might acquit him.

There is also the credibility factor of the main witness, who surely will be Michael Cohen. All it takes is one person to question his motives to cause a hung jury.

Thank you for your insight, it is too easy to assume New Yorkers are all on one camp. I seem to recall a chapter/station (?) of the NYPD Union or whatever its called, came out for Trump in 2020.

Curious thing though: if Cohen has been found guilty of the crime(s) Trump is accused of, does this mean the Court must find that Trump knowingly participated? Can he just say he didn't know, that the money paid for Cohen was 'legal expenses' he made no further enquiries about?

[Fitzcarraldo]

I think the key is to take these decisions on District Boundaries out of the State control and create a completely Independent Commission, because neither of the two major parties can be trusted, and trust in institutions is vital in a democracy.

Courts order this sort of thing. Republicans subvert the orders.

[Stavros]

I used to take the view that the US generally, and in its politics, was more flexible, and open to change than the UK system, I wonder if you agree with this. It seems to me that your politics has lost its imagination, is no longer bold or making an appeal to the voters at large. And if true, is this just a phase the US is going through, and will it end with a re-discovery of policies that work, and more generally, an increase in the standard of living so that people feel -what, 'comfortable'? If that is the right word.

One probably irrelevant comparison -the USA with 50 States has 435 members in its House of Representatives; the UK House of Commons has 650, with proposed Boundary Commission changes reducing this to 600 (will be voted on next July). I don't understand the discrepancy and wonder who has the more effective representation at District/Constituency level.

The US Senate has 100 members; the estimated number in our 'Upper Chamber', the House of Lords, is 776, not including members of the Royal Family, and one should point out that of that number includes Lords conducting Govt business, and many who either never show up for debates, or sign in to get their expenses, and then disappear. But would democracies function better with only one chamber, as in Israel?

[Fitzcarraldo]

I used to take the view that the US generally, and in its politics, was more flexible, and open to change than the UK system, I wonder if you agree with this. It seems to me that your politics has lost its imagination, is no longer bold or making an appeal to the voters at large. And if true, is this just a phase the US is going through, and will it end with a re-discovery of policies that work, and more generally, an increase in the standard of living so that people feel -what, 'comfortable'? If that is the right word.

One probably irrelevant comparison -the USA with 50 States has 435 members in its House of Representatives; the UK House of Commons has 650, with proposed Boundary Commission changes reducing this to 600 (will be voted on next July). I don't understand the discrepancy and wonder who has the more effective representation at District/Constituency level.

The US Senate has 100 members; the estimated number in our 'Upper Chamber', the House of Lords, is 776, not including members of the Royal Family, and one should point out that of that number includes Lords conducting Govt business, and many who either never show up for debates, or sign in to get their expenses, and then disappear. But would democracies function better with only one chamber, as in Israel?

It is set up to be flexible, but it has definitely become more rigid in my lifetime. Party machines used to run cities, but now they run states and they're trying to take over the federal government.

Republicans have abdicated on policy and now simply try to grab power. They gerrymander and pass laws to restrict voting at the state level. They have also prioritized appointing judges (worked out great for Trump), and this is one of the most dangerous things they've done. Look at what happened in Germany when the Party took over the courts. They also are getting very active in school board elections, which are typically nonpartisan offices. They are trying to make them partisan. Control the courts and what students are taught and you can lock down ideology. (In my state, they have passed laws with "rights" in the formal name, but if you read the text, it is full of the word "prohibit.")

Republicans are trying to weaken federal authority and throw control back to the states. They've already achieved this on abortion law. They will try to do the same thing with gay marriage. A senator from my state wants to "sunset" all federal laws every 5 years, and then if they're found to be desirable, they will renew the law. It's ridiculous, and it would destroy Social Security and Medicare. He claims it won't, but he's lying. He's been trying to privatize Social Security already.

When Republicans control Congress, they don't pass legislation, aside from culture war stuff. Trump kept bragging about "infrastructure week," but nothing ever happened (Biden got a massive infrastructure bill passed). They wanted to do away with Obamacare, but had no replacement for it.

I've never been a fan of the Democrats, but they're currently our only hope if we want to preserve a constitutional republic.

Regarding Israel, have you looked at the news about Israel lately?

One chamber for a country with over 300 million people would not work. The beauty of our system is separation of powers, and also that there are mechanisms built into the Constitution to allow change to the government without a revolution. These things have a great dampening effect on wild swings. The system was tested as severely as it ever has been with Trump's presidency and especially his exit, and it held. It is still in great danger, but there is hope.

This is a slightly different topic, but lots of people (especially Democrats) want to do away with the electoral college and elect the president by popular vote. The electoral college is one of those dampers I mentioned. If we switch to popular vote, the residents of the most populous states will be guaranteed to elect the president. Population density varies greatly throughout our country, and citizens in different areas have different priorities. Presidents elected by urban residents only will pander to urban voters to get elected. Rural voters have already felt ignored for decades. This is one reason they rejected Hillary Clinton, who did not bother to visit midwestern states during her campaign, and embraced Donald Trump, who did visit and pretended to love them and speak for them.

[filghy2]

The US Senate has 100 members; the estimated number in our 'Upper Chamber', the House of Lords, is 776, not including members of the Royal Family, and one should point out that of that number includes Lords conducting Govt business, and many who either never show up for debates, or sign in to get their expenses, and then disappear. But would democracies function better with only one chamber, as in Israel?

It's not a good idea to reduce checks and balances too much. I would have thought your own recent experience in the UK would have taught you the dangers of allowing a temporary majority to make very fundamental changes. Just look at countries like Hungary and now Israel to see where this can end up.

That said, it's not good if change becomes too hard. The biggest barrier to legislative change in the US seems to be the Senate filibuster rule, which isn't in the Constitution and should be easiest to change.

There are two chambers in Australia, as well as states. The system was designed to be a blend of the best features of the US and UK systems. I think it works pretty well in allowing change while also maintaining checks and balances. The Federal government almost never has a majority in the Senate, so it has to negotiate with the minor parties and independents, which is probably a good thing in general.

[Stavros]

One chamber for a country with over 300 million people would not work. The beauty of our system is separation of powers, and also that there are mechanisms built into the Constitution to allow change to the government without a revolution. These things have a great dampening effect on wild swings. The system was tested as severely as it ever has been with Trump's presidency and especially his exit, and it held. It is still in great danger, but there is hope.

This is a slightly different topic, but lots of people (especially Democrats) want to do away with the electoral college and elect the president by popular vote. The electoral college is one of those dampers I mentioned. If we switch to popular vote, the residents of the most populous states will be guaranteed to elect the president. Population density varies greatly throughout our country, and citizens in different areas have different priorities. Presidents elected by urban residents only will pander to urban voters to get elected. Rural voters have already felt ignored for decades. This is one reason they rejected Hillary Clinton, who did not bother to visit midwestern states during her campaign, and embraced Donald Trump, who did visit and pretended to love them and speak for them.

Although the Trump phenomenon has tested the checks and balances inherent in the US system, I think it was the Nixon Presidency that established itself as the test -because Nixon was abandoned by his own Party, who considered the Presidency more important than one man -and because it was so obvious that he had lied as well as being part of a complex operation to cover up the truth. Ford's pardon spared Nixon the trial some wanted, and some felt would have been a step too far given how broken Nixon was, whereas the system remained intact.

One watches with dismay the Republican tactic now, given that Trump was never fit for public office -Nixon, after all had years of public service before becoming President- with a language that would have been inconceivable in 1974 -the lies, the threats of violence, the insults and abuse of Americans, and the appeals for money. It seems quite incredible that Lindsay Graham can ask people to donate money to a cause when the person concerned, Trump, claims to be a Billionaire. But this is now 'normal' politics.

I think you are right about the Electoral College, though I assume it can either be reformed in some way, or something be done to prevent the creation of 'fake electors' as happened in 2020. And if the States retain control of the process that draws District Boundaries, is there no scope for changing the way candidates are selected, to prevent someone like Trump from even being considered?

It may be part of the American Dream, that anyone can aspire to be President, but as we have seen it is not always a good idea if that someone has such a murky past with proven links to organized crime. I don't see any changes in this process, but then I see little to hope for in US politics 'going forward'.

I think again, you are right about a bi-cameral legislature, though I am not sure how it would work in the UK where the abolition of the House of Lords was, I think for the first time in the Labour Party manifesto in 1945, but about which nothing has been done.

As for Israel, ponder the fact that so many Israeli politicians -Presidents, Prime Ministers, Knesset members- have been sent to prison, there is a wikipedia page on it. So far, Israel hasn't collapsed because of its criminal politicians...one even wonders, who's next?

List of Israeli public officials convicted of crimes or misdemeanors - Wikipedia