Indecision 2024

[Grumble]

https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/trump-usu ... indictment

An interesting article on why Trump will struggle to defend the third indictment.

- believing the election was fraudulent does not permit his criminal actions, and

- he cannot present a defence that he relied on expert lawyers unless he takes the stand, which would be hilarious but won't ever happen.

I saw a proposed question to him at trial along the lines of:

"Many people are saying that one of the lawyers must have been the mastermind behind this scheme. Who was it? Did Rudy or John Eastman tell you what to do?"

And then let narcissism do the rest of the work.

Unfortunately if he’s not on the stand he won’t be asked questions. Otherwise this would totally work. Also make sure the lawyer posing him questions is a woman, like the way the police got Harold Shipman to crack because he had to show his superiority to a female police officer.

[Woodchopper]

Got overshadowed by the indictment but this is depressing:

[...] despite the stop-the-steal movement, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and the numerous investigations facing Mr. Trump, Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump are still tied, each at 43 percent, among registered voters in our first Times/Siena poll of the 2024 election cycle.

The possibility that criminal indictments haven’t crippled Mr. Trump’s general election chances might come as a surprise or even a shock, but the result is worth taking seriously.

[...]

Mr. Trump’s resilience is not necessarily an indication of his strength. In most respects, he appears to be a badly wounded general election candidate. Just 41 percent of registered voters say they have a favorable view of him, while a majority believe he committed serious federal crimes and say his conduct after the last election went so far that it threatened American democracy.

But Mr. Biden shows little strength of his own. His favorability rating is only two points higher than Mr. Trump’s. And despite an improving economy, his approval rating is only 39 percent — a mere two points higher than it was in our poll in October, before the midterm election. At least for now, he seems unable to capitalize on his opponent’s profound vulnerability.

Democrats can’t necessarily assume the race will snap back into a clear Biden lead once people tune into the race, either. The 14 percent of voters who didn’t back Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump consisted mostly of people who volunteered — even though it wasn’t provided as an option in the poll — that they would vote for someone else or simply wouldn’t vote if those were the candidates. They know the candidates; they just don’t want either of them.

[...]

the upside for Mr. Biden among the dissenting 14 percent of voters isn’t necessarily as great as it might look. He leads by a mere two points — 47 percent to 45 percent — if we reassign these voters to Mr. Trump or Mr. Biden based on how they say they voted in the 2020 election. And Mr. Biden still leads by two points, 49-47, if we further restrict the poll to those who actually voted in 2020 or 2022.

A two-point edge is certainly better for Mr. Biden than a tie, but it’s not exactly a commanding advantage. It’s closer than his 4.5-point popular vote win in 2020, and it’s well within a range in which Mr. Trump can win in the key battleground states, where he has usually done better than he has nationwide.

[...]

To the extent the survey suggests a slightly closer race than four years ago, it appears mostly attributable to modest Trump gains among Black, Hispanic, male and low-income voters. The sample sizes of these subgroups are relatively small, but we’ve seen signs of Trump strength among these groups before. In some cases, like Hispanic and lower-income voters, they’re groups that have already trended toward Republicans during the Trump era. It would hardly be a surprise if those trends continued. Here again, it’s a story worth taking seriously.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/01/upsh ... -2024.html

Donald J. Trump famously marveled during his first presidential campaign that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and he would not lose any support.

He now seems intent on testing the premise of unwavering loyalty behind that statement.

The federal charges against the former president seem to have cost him few, if any, votes in the 2024 election, even as the number of Republicans who think he has committed serious federal crimes has ticked up.

He continues to hold strong in a hypothetical general election matchup, despite the fact that 17 percent of voters who prefer him over President Biden think either that he has committed serious federal crimes or that he threatened democracy with his actions after the 2020 election, according to the latest New York Times/Siena College poll.

[...]

In total, a quarter of Republicans either believe Mr. Trump acted criminally or say they are not sure.

So far, however, having reservations about Mr. Trump’s alleged wrongdoing does not appear to be leading Republican voters to reconsider their support for him. If anything, in public opinion polls conducted when he was indicted in March in Manhattan in relation to hush money payments to a p.rn star, and then when he was indicted again in June by federal prosecutors in connection with retention of reams of classified national defense material, Mr. Trump was buoyed by Republican voters.

[...]

nearly 75 percent of Republicans still say Mr. Trump did not commit any serious federal crimes. Of that group, 17 percent say they think the former president may have done something wrong in the handling of classified documents.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/01/us/p ... rimes.html

To borrow an old political cliché, the poll shows that Mr. Biden’s support among Democrats is a mile wide and an inch deep. About 30 percent of voters who said they planned to vote for Mr. Biden in November 2024 said they hoped Democrats would nominate someone else. Just 20 percent of Democrats said they would be enthusiastic if Mr. Biden were the party’s 2024 presidential nominee; another 51 percent said they would be satisfied but not enthusiastic.

[...]

Mr. Biden has recovered significantly from last summer. At the time, Democratic grumbling about his likely re-election bid had mounted, and a Times/Siena poll found that 64 percent of Democrats said they did not want the party to renominate him — including 94 percent of Democrats under the age of 30. Now only half of all Democrats said they did not want Mr. Biden to be the nominee in 2024.

The party’s enthusiasm about him began to tick up last fall after the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, better-than-expected results in the midterm elections, a string of policy victories for Mr. Biden and improvements in the economy as inflation slowed.

[...]

Mr. Biden is leading Mr. Trump among the same groups that helped solidify his victory in 2020: women, suburban voters, college-educated white voters and Black voters. But he seems to show early signs of potential vulnerability with Hispanic voters, who have shifted toward Republicans in recent elections.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/01/us/p ... -poll.html

[dyqik]

I wouldn't believe polls as predictive right now. Trump has been campaigning in right wing media bubble for two and half years, and Biden really hasn't started campaigning yet.

[Woodchopper]

I wouldn't believe polls as predictive right now. Trump has been campaigning in right wing media bubble for two and half years, and Biden really hasn't started campaigning yet.

Yes, its early days. I am though feeling persuaded by the point that the voters have already made up their minds about each candidate. They aren't going to learn anything that they didn't know already.

[dyqik]

I wouldn't believe polls as predictive right now. Trump has been campaigning in right wing media bubble for two and half years, and Biden really hasn't started campaigning yet.

Yes, its early days. I am though feeling persuaded by the point that the voters have already made up their minds about each candidate. They aren't going to learn anything that they didn't know already.

There's a load of things for Biden to campaign on that he is not yet campaigning on. Americans believe that the economy is in a disastrous recession, when it isn't, for example.

[bjn]

Why is he holding that back? It should be a drum beat until the election. Just hammer home that the US economy is going great. Don’t spring it as a surprise.

[dyqik]

Why is he holding that back? It should be a drum beat until the election. Just hammer home that the US economy is going great. Don’t spring it as a surprise.

It's over a year from the primaries finishing. His biggest opponent is in court today being arraigned for trying to subvert democracy.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." applies right now.

[Herainestold]

We are seeing the disintegration of America in real time. Who would have thought?

[dyqik]

We are seeing the disintegration of America in real time. Who would have thought?

Eh?

We're seeing the rule of law in action.

[EACLucifer]

Got overshadowed by the indictment but this is depressing:

[...] despite the stop-the-steal movement, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and the numerous investigations facing Mr. Trump, Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump are still tied, each at 43 percent...

Polls don't really mean anything at this point

[dyqik]

Got overshadowed by the indictment but this is depressing:

[...] despite the stop-the-steal movement, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and the numerous investigations facing Mr. Trump, Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump are still tied, each at 43 percent...

Polls don't really mean anything at this point

Or at least, they are driven enough by how much low attention voters see someone in the news to not matter at the ±5% per candidate level.

[Woodchopper]

Got overshadowed by the indictment but this is depressing:

[...] despite the stop-the-steal movement, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and the numerous investigations facing Mr. Trump, Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump are still tied, each at 43 percent...

Polls don't really mean anything at this point

Usually they don't. But that's when at least one of the candidates is a newcomer to being president. People form new opinions, they make up their minds during the campaign.

I think that the last time two ex-presidents ran was over a century ago with Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

We'll have to see how this one pans out.

[tenchboy]

I saw a proposed question to him at trial along the lines of:

"Many people are saying that one of the lawyers must have been the mastermind behind this scheme. Who was it? Did Rudy or John Eastman tell you what to do?"

And then let narcissism do the rest of the work.

Earlier this week, Mr Trump wrote in capital letters, "If you go after me, I am coming after you!" on Truth Social, just a day after he pleaded not guilty to four charges in the alleged election fraud case.

Can only end well.
Must be a nightmare for his 'team'

[Herainestold]

Contrast how Trump is treated in America and how Navalny is treated in Russia.
That is why the Putin regime will outlive the Biden regime.

[dyqik]

Contrast how Trump is treated in America and how Navalny is treated in Russia.
That is why the Putin regime will outlive the Biden regime.

There is no Biden regime, you little fool.

[lpm]

No. But Herainestold has a point.

Trump has now openly said he will overthrow the rule of law. And yet he's free to campaign, intimidate witnesses and steal money from supporters.

The Republic is 18 months and a presidential health crisis away from death.

[dyqik]

No. But Herainestold has a point.

Trump has now openly said he will overthrow the rule of law. And yet he's free to campaign, intimidate witnesses and steal money from supporters.

The Republic is 18 months and a presidential health crisis away from death.

And the rule of law is working to prosecute him for the crimes he did commit.

[Herainestold]

No. But Herainestold has a point.

Trump has now openly said he will overthrow the rule of law. And yet he's free to campaign, intimidate witnesses and steal money from supporters.

The Republic is 18 months and a presidential health crisis away from death.

And the rule of law is working to prosecute him for the crimes he did commit.

It won't work though. Trump gets re elected, pardons himself and everyone involved in Jan 6.

[lpm]

No. But Herainestold has a point.

Trump has now openly said he will overthrow the rule of law. And yet he's free to campaign, intimidate witnesses and steal money from supporters.

The Republic is 18 months and a presidential health crisis away from death.

And the rule of law is working to prosecute him for the crimes he did commit.

Until the new AG and DOJ drop all charges.

Come on Georgia.

[IvanV]

No. But Herainestold has a point.

Trump has now openly said he will overthrow the rule of law. And yet he's free to campaign, intimidate witnesses and steal money from supporters.

The Republic is 18 months and a presidential health crisis away from death.

And the rule of law is working to prosecute him for the crimes he did commit.

Until the new AG and DOJ drop all charges.

Come on Georgia.

Incomplete cases will at best be adjourned, at worst dropped by a partisan administration, if Trump is re-elected.

The only prosecution where there are clear charges and clear evidence that makes it look like those charges should stick is the document handling case. So that's the one where there is the best chance of bringing it to a clear completion before the end of 2024. US courts sometimes seem quite efficient at cutting out the delaying tactics and coming to verdict, once they get going, and everything is clearly set out. But the prosecutors wanted a trial early autumn, but apparently somehow the court date is now 20 May 2024. So with that long delay achieved, who knows what further delays can be inserted and so if that can finish in 2024. If it does, I don't think the president is going to get away with a self-pardon, for all that has been talked about. The supreme court has been packed, but I think there's enough people on it supreme court with a sense that's an abuse of process and that way lies dictatorship. People who hope Trump will give them a job are in keep-your-mouth-shut mode, but some other influential right-wingers have been saying that self-pardon is really not on.

I don't have much hope for the latest indictment. It is not exactly a slam-dunk, like the documents case, from what I read by various legal commentators. It's a very US indictment in its imprecision. Most countries with proper legal systems, they'd tell you exactly what you are charged with, but we don't get that here.

Take the first charge. A conspiracy to defraud the United States blah-de-blah under 18 USC 371. 18 USC 371 is just the law on conspiracy. But conspiracy depends on there being a specific offence that the conspirators jointly sought to commit, and we are not told precisely what that offence is. We have "defrauding the United States", but that is not a well-known offence, or even one that specialist lawyers can decipher for you. There's quite a narrative behind this. But ultimately we don't have clearly set out what precise offence this conspiracy relates to, nor is it self-evident, and hence whether the evidence supports it. We have to wait and see to find out what precisely they might mean by that. Unfortunately, it even sounds a bit like the kind of thing dissidents get charged with in places like China. So I'm singularly unimpressed by this.

Apparently it doesn't get much better as you go down the charge sheet.

So I don't have a great deal of hope there is much traction in this latest case. It may later turn out that there is a precise set of charges and evidence that makes it clear those charges will stick. But if there is, why didn't we get it now? In the documents case, the prosecutors did their homework and produced the kind of clear case you need in this situation. Evidently there is a degree of fortune in being able to achieve that. This looks like they couldn't really do that, or work out how to do that, this time. There isn't a single clear and well-defined charge. And if even the very well-defined documents case can be delayed like that, I would guess there are even more options for delay here.

[dyqik]

No. But Herainestold has a point.

Trump has now openly said he will overthrow the rule of law. And yet he's free to campaign, intimidate witnesses and steal money from supporters.

The Republic is 18 months and a presidential health crisis away from death.

And the rule of law is working to prosecute him for the crimes he did commit.

Until the new AG and DOJ drop all charges.

Come on Georgia.

What do you expect to happen? An illegal imprisonment of Trump? How would that not be just as bad as what Trump attempted?

[headshot]

And the rule of law is working to prosecute him for the crimes he did commit.

Until the new AG and DOJ drop all charges.

Come on Georgia.

Incomplete cases will at best be adjourned, at worst dropped by a partisan administration, if Trump is re-elected.

The only prosecution where there are clear charges and clear evidence that makes it look like those charges should stick is the document handling case. So that's the one where there is the best chance of bringing it to a clear completion before the end of 2024. US courts sometimes seem quite efficient at cutting out the delaying tactics and coming to verdict, once they get going, and everything is clearly set out. But the prosecutors wanted a trial early autumn, but apparently somehow the court date is now 20 May 2024. So with that long delay achieved, who knows what further delays can be inserted and so if that can finish in 2024. If it does, I don't think the president is going to get away with a self-pardon, for all that has been talked about. The supreme court has been packed, but I think there's enough people on it supreme court with a sense that's an abuse of process and that way lies dictatorship. People who hope Trump will give them a job are in keep-your-mouth-shut mode, but some other influential right-wingers have been saying that self-pardon is really not on.

I don't have much hope for the latest indictment. It is not exactly a slam-dunk, like the documents case, from what I read by various legal commentators. It's a very US indictment in its imprecision. Most countries with proper legal systems, they'd tell you exactly what you are charged with, but we don't get that here.

Take the first charge. A conspiracy to defraud the United States blah-de-blah under 18 USC 371. 18 USC 371 is just the law on conspiracy. But conspiracy depends on there being a specific offence that the conspirators jointly sought to commit, and we are not told precisely what that offence is. We have "defrauding the United States", but that is not a well-known offence, or even one that specialist lawyers can decipher for you. There's quite a narrative behind this. But ultimately we don't have clearly set out what precise offence this conspiracy relates to, nor is it self-evident, and hence whether the evidence supports it. We have to wait and see to find out what precisely they might mean by that. Unfortunately, it even sounds a bit like the kind of thing dissidents get charged with in places like China. So I'm singularly unimpressed by this.

Apparently it doesn't get much better as you go down the charge sheet.

So I don't have a great deal of hope there is much traction in this latest case. It may later turn out that there is a precise set of charges and evidence that makes it clear those charges will stick. But if there is, why didn't we get it now? In the documents case, the prosecutors did their homework and produced the kind of clear case you need in this situation. Evidently there is a degree of fortune in being able to achieve that. This looks like they couldn't really do that, or work out how to do that, this time. There isn't a single clear and well-defined charge. And if even the very well-defined documents case can be delayed like that, I would guess there are even more options for delay here.

Pretty sure Jack Smith knows more about this than forum-ites…

[dyqik]

And certainly more than Ivan, who clearly hasn't even bothered to look at the indictments, public summaries of them or the case law around those statutes.

The conspiracy Trump is charged with is sending fake electors certificates to Congress. These consist of clear fraudulent statements signed on paper, purporting to be the results of official elections. The fraud charge is the sending of those statements. Trump conspired with others to have those documents written and sent.

[lpm]

And the rule of law is working to prosecute him for the crimes he did commit.

Until the new AG and DOJ drop all charges.

Come on Georgia.

What do you expect to happen? An illegal imprisonment of Trump? How would that not be just as bad as what Trump attempted?

Why illegal?

He could have been prosecuted 2 years ago. Garland failed, as Mueller failed. It's been nothing but delay enabling Trump to gain strength.

The Constitution is a dud. It allows for pardons of co-conspirators and the corruption of the Supreme Court. Government is paralysed and money dominates Congress.

Justice in this crisis needs energy and determination, not the current timidity.

[dyqik]

And certainly more than Ivan, who clearly hasn't even bothered to look at the indictments, public summaries of them or the case law around those statutes.

The conspiracy Trump is charged with is sending fake electors certificates to Congress. These consist of clear fraudulent statements signed on paper, purporting to be the results of official elections. The fraud charge is the sending of those statements. Trump conspired with others to have those documents written and sent.

Trump's knowledge of this scheme and its fraudulent nature is testified to by his attempts to pressure Mike Pence to accept these certificates as potentially genuine, thus discarding the genuine certificates, prior to Jan 6th. Pence will most likely testify. His prior involvement is likely also known from testimony from the co-conspirators listed in the indictment.

So it's a really very clear chain of evidence of what is a classic example of fraud in the more general sense. The "defrauding the United States" charge is used because of the target of the fraud.