• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The President is a Crook By David Frum
Trump’s whole philosophy of life is of a kill-or-be-killed competition. It’s an old question: Is Trump an authoritarian, or a crook? The answer is shaping up. Trump must be an authoritarian precisely because he is a crook. The country can have the rule of law, or it can keep the Trump presidency. Facing that choice, who doubts what Trump’s answer, or the answer of his supporters, will be?

Trump has been a grifter his entire life. He is a populist authoritarian. How anybody can defend him right now...it is just ridiculous.
 
They tried to nail John Edwards for the same thing (paying off a mistress during a campaign). The prosecutors failed to get a conviction, and rightly so.

It's kind of neat how Trump faces bogus charges in this regard, but you were more open-minded when it came to Edwards' being in legal jeopardy:

In Edwards' case, his handling of his infidelity marked a massive egocentrism, a disregard for risk, a penchant for scapegoating underlings, and possibly even a willingness to break the law. Can you not understand why that might be a bad sign for a potential leader?

Maybe Trump's proven himself a strong leader. Maybe we've learned more about the law from politician payoffs. Learning. We needed to be wary of thin-skinned narcissists, but we can learn how to make peace with them. Character still matters.

Bonus arguments against Trump Edwards:
What politicians do with their personal lives can give us insight into their character. And character matters. Some of the most important decisions politicians can ever face involve issues that weren't part of their campaign, and may not have even been anticipated (see our response to 9/11, though less extreme examples are much more common). Campaign policy positions are of no use in informing us how politicians might respond. For that, personal character is one of the best guides we have. And the personal lives of politicians tell us a lot about a politician's character. We now know, for example, that John Edwards is reckless. You may not care about his fidelity to his wife, but his willingness to take great risks for purely selfish and petty reasons should give anyone pause.

That doesn't mean that everything is fair game, though. It matters that Edwards cheated on his cancer-striken wife with a woman he may have been paying illegally with campaign funds. It doesn't matter what their preferred sexual position was. Furthermore, the actions of those close to a politician or candidate do not give us much insight into the candidate themselves. So children of politicians, for example, should not receive the kind of scrutiny that the politician themselves may rightly be subjected to.
 
You can't imagine why the prosecution might want him to say that? You can't imagine why he might be willing to say what prosecutors want him to say even if it's not true?

You think Cohen is lying in his plea-bargain because prosecutors have asked him to? What evidence do you have of this?
 
Meanwhile

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...michael-cohen-immunity?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

David Pecker of the National Enquirer has apparently been granted immunity by the Cohen investigation

And this is relevant to the discussion uptheread

According to prosecutors, AMI advised Cohen throughout the course of the campaign, leading to the purchase of the Daniels and McDougal stories “so as to suppress them and prevent them from influencing the election”.

Prosecutors continued that AMI CEO Pecker helped “deal with negative stories about [Trump’s] relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided”.

Samuel Freedman, a professor of journalism at the Columbia School of Journalism in New York, told the Guardian either of those claims clearly oversteps the role of the press and the protections to report freely that it is afforded under the US constitution.

While the first amendment gives media companies broad freedoms to communicate with candidates, they are not permitted to act outside “legitimate press function”, in this case, potentially coordinating with a campaign to spend money to influence an election.
 
Meanwhile

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...michael-cohen-immunity?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

David Pecker of the National Enquirer has apparently been granted immunity by the Cohen investigation

And this is relevant to the discussion uptheread

Wouldn't the shareholders of AMI have some legal course of action against their CEO here? He's spending the companies money to do a personal favor for a friend. It's tabloid spending money not to publish a salacious story. Seems like self-enrichment to me.
 
It's kind of neat how Trump faces bogus charges in this regard, but you were more open-minded when it came to Edwards' being in legal jeopardy:



Maybe Trump's proven himself a strong leader. Maybe we've learned more about the law from politician payoffs. Learning. We needed to be wary of thin-skinned narcissists, but we can learn how to make peace with them. Character still matters.

Bonus arguments against Trump Edwards:
Cancer-stricken wife, Baby-having wife. It's totally different.
 
Wouldn't the shareholders of AMI have some legal course of action against their CEO here? He's spending the companies money to do a personal favor for a friend. It's tabloid spending money not to publish a salacious story. Seems like self-enrichment to me.



The UK version was *very* well timed in 1990, with Thatcher's resignation loss of power happening in the middle of the series.

And Ian Richardson was very good as a patrician
 
It's kind of neat how Trump faces bogus charges in this regard, but you were more open-minded when it came to Edwards' being in legal jeopardy:

That post wasn't really about the legal case against Edwards. It was about character, how one evaluates it, and what importance we place on it for politicians.

If you think the whole Stormy affair reveals something bad about Trump's character, I agree wholeheartedly. If you think these character flaws mean people shouldn't vote for Trump, go ahead. I won't contest such a conclusion. But don't confuse the morality of the issue with the legality.
 
You think Cohen is lying in his plea-bargain because prosecutors have asked him to? What evidence do you have of this?

Good question, but Ziggurat is JAQing in order to sow the seeds of doubt. I've seen better lines of argument than his from Truthers over in the CT forum.
 
Good question, but Ziggurat is JAQing in order to sow the seeds of doubt. I've seen better lines of argument than his from Truthers over in the CT forum.

He wasn't jaq'ing.

It is a condition of a plea that the defendant admit responsibility of all the elements of a prima facie charge.
 
That post wasn't really about the legal case against Edwards.

Agreed.

It was about character, how one evaluates it, and what importance we place on it for politicians.

Yes.

If you think the whole Stormy affair reveals something bad about Trump's character, I agree wholeheartedly.

Cool.

If you think these character flaws mean people shouldn't vote for Trump, go ahead. I won't contest such a conclusion.

OK.

But don't confuse the morality of the issue with the legality.

I'm not, and this is where you're full of ****. Is it so difficult to see that you assessed Edwards' legal jeopardy differently than Trump's? At least the bias maintains throughout, and always in the same direction (which is on display in the comments about character).
 
Wouldn't the shareholders of AMI have some legal course of action against their CEO here? He's spending the companies money to do a personal favor for a friend. It's tabloid spending money not to publish a salacious story. Seems like self-enrichment to me.

Sounds like an illegal campaign contribution to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom