“Can you proffer any evidence that [the grant] was illegal, or evidence of abuse or fraud or bribery — that any of that was improperly or unlawfully done, other than the fact that Mr. Zeldin doesn’t like it?” Judge Tanya Chutkan said.
Judge Chutkan also ordered the Justice Department to provide the court with details about the alleged fraud, “because I don’t have the credible evidence that’s required.”
This whole calling things fraud without actually have any evidence is really starting to get old.
Personally, I've considered the problem to be a long term one and fixing it as a possible silver lining. I have to admit that I'm a bit of a pessimist about the integrity of the American people. I was wrong about what would happen with the first Black President, I was sure the racism was going to have a silver lining of cutting down the POTUS and not allowing a show like this. But the POTUS office is still the reason the US will kill itself at a minimum. (Nothing good can go unpunished?)
The judge can request that the lawyers involved lose their admission to practice in federal court for serious ethical violations like the ones here.
However, this very rarely happens except in the most egregious cases where the lawyer is usually also disbarred for their conduct (i.e., Guiliani) so it's not a meaningful disciplinary measure.
As I understand it, in an "adversarial" legal system, each side is represented by a lawyer who is obliged to put forward the strongest argument they can; then the court decides between the arguments. And so even incredibly guilty people are entitled to have a lawyer on their side, lawyering as effectively as they can.
So to them, there's no shame in representing an asshole and advancing a terrible argument, if that's what their client wants.
What's more, generally you don't become a judge without being a lawyer for a few decades first. And they know what class solidarity is. Why would they be overly harsh with their colleagues and friends, if nothing explicitly demands they do so?
Pretty much every legal case ends involves at least one side ending up unhappy. And pretty much every legal case involves at least one person who's happy to make legal threats. I'd wager many lawyers have someone threaten to get them disbarred a few times a year. It'd be difficult for the legal system to function if getting people disbarred was easy.
I guess I should have been clear that when I said stupid arguments, I meant breaking the rules, not necessarily arguing from a position of weakness.
I’m not asking why there are people representing shaky cases. Even bad people are entitled to a competent defense.
I’m talking about why judges allow lawyers to get away with breaking courtroom procedure and rules.
I don’t think there is as much class solidarity among lawyers. Most lawyers I know are happy to shit talk other lawyers, hell, many of them would jump at the chance to find an idiot in contempt.
After a few decades of dealing with clowns and reaching a federal judgeship, you’d think they would take the opportunity to knock some heads.
On the scale of Wild Things happening in US politics, this one is pretty minor. Provoking that sort of constitutional crisis over it seems poorly advised - it'd be better if the judicial system sticks to their traditional role of telling people to do things differently when it has been established that the government is acting illegally.
In my lifetime politicians have associated with flagrant lies that led to 100,000s of deaths and they aren't even expected to apologise. The Iraq war alone is a study - eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project.
Are you talking about when Obama admin did it, Biden admin did it or Trump admin did it? I mean, I agree but I have this sinking feeling that a lot of the people complaining aren't worried about the idea in principle and they just hate Trump.
There is this weird thing where the big government people have suddenly had a revelation that the day-to-day operation of government is threatening. And I welcome that because it is true, I just don't know what they think has changed apart from that they lost an election.
What exactly did the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago find?
It was believed that Trump had improperly stored classified documents there...
... and he had.
And was lying about it too.
So yeah, how was that not good faith?
"These documents are missing. They were last in the possession of the President. He's on video seen with staffers loading up similar documents to take to Florida. We apply for a search warrant when he denies what's on video, a judge grants it, and we go look, and find exactly those documents."
Obama famously looked the other way when asked whether the war crimes of the Bush administration were going to be investigated. Trump was impeached for looking in to Biden's Ukraine links and it turned out that the Biden family needed multiple pardons for it although they were very generally worded so they didn't ever admit what exactly they were up to.
All these politicians are committing things that are crimes. Raiding your opponents house because you think they're improperly storing documents is blatant intimidation and harassment and the follow up was absolutely criminal prosecutions of political opponents without justification. The only silver lining is the US public had the rational response and supported Trump against the bullying.
Trump was impeached not because of “biden’s ukraine links” but was impeached (the first time) because trump withheld aid from Ukraine on a phone call - contingent on Ukraine digging up dirt on a political opponent. Thats tinpot dictator stuff.
The FBI raided Mar-a-lago as a last resort. He was asked to return classified documents and lied about it. Then it was shown he ordered others to move the documents so as to obstruct the investigation. As pointed out before. What should happen? If I would do that I would be in jail, rightly so.
And your first mistake is assuming I'm okay with a Democrat administration overlooking potential criminal actions.
That's a lot of the times the difference. Many left leaning people will say "and they should be prosecuted too" which is almost ... shocking ... to some on the other side (and not in part because they really see it as 'sides').
> Raiding your opponents house because you think they're improperly storing documents is blatant intimidation
Horseshit. You act as though it's some wild cockeyed theory. There are audit trails for classified documents. The President's office was the last who had them. He and his staffers were shown on national fucking TV carrying boxes that looked identical onto a plane and into his private residence. And then he lied about it, and attempted to conceal evidence and obstruct justice.
Your spin is disingenous at best. "Bullying". And if you think the public mostly thought Trump was being unfairly "bullied" and intimated over those documents, then that says something about your perspective.
Also for complete clarity, since Biden had a very similar thing happen with the improper storing of documents: He shouldn't be doing that either. Why didn't it rise to the same level? Maybe because he didn't actively try to sabotage an investigation into it. But I don't think it should have been ignored because "well, -he- has a '(D)' after his name".
> Why didn't it rise to the same level? Maybe because he didn't actively try to sabotage an investigation into it.
That is tantamount to saying the issue isn't the mis-storing of classified documents, but that Biden didn't feel like threatened by an investigation from the Biden administration. Colour me shocked. That and the lawfare the Democrats were engaging in through the last election cycle was blatant process abuse and it was a relief that the attacks failed in such spectacular fashion.
This is a vocal mob of activists looking for ways to get Trump. If they want to do that by proposing general-purpose anti-corruption improvements and limitations on government then sure, that might be a productive path forward. But in practice it is going to be a bunch of measures that only target Trump because these people aren't worried about the abuse of power, in fact they were cool with it when it targeted their enemies. It has been an ongoing issue for at least the 20 years; since the Patriot act came into action. Probably longer. It hasn't suddenly sprung up because Trump won a second election with a bigger margin than last time. We know for a fact that the people who are serious about it have been unable to get much purchase in the political world.
> The only political figure convicted while Biden was in office was… Biden.
He was then pardoned. By his father. Is that really the example you want to use to show Joe Biden upholding the rule of law fairly?
I don't even think it is particularly bad, there is a standing convention that presidents can do illegal things and get away with it as long as it isn't too sensitive, apparently that extends to close family. So be it. But if that is the standard, that standard applies to Trump too. I mean, if Biden thinks that taxes are optional and he is responsible improperly storing documents himself then he has no business organising FBI raids of his political opponents for doing something a bit off. Or the follow up special prosecution, adding actual abuse of power by the Biden admin to what could maybe be brushed off as miscommunication or terrible optics up to then. He clearly understands that this is normal behaviour for someone in high office.
It is this weird dynamic where the left wing clearly understands that these behaviours are bad, but only choose to recognise them as such when Trump can be targeted. Is it so terrible to accept that it is also bad when any other politician misbehaves? Consistency is necessary to make the system hold together. Trump behaving in a manner consistent with the laws and of a high ethical standard would be really nice. It would be nice if any president behaved that way. We're still waiting for one that does. On the scale of presidents Trump scores pretty highly for good behaviour. He hasn't invaded a country under false pretences which makes him the best Republican president in around 30 years. We can speculate that any war crimes he committed were probably more accidental than the purposeful use of torture by the Bush administration too.
And then tomorrow someone will be arguing that these are the people who should control healthcare or education or whatever.
I realize no set of facts will change your mind. The difference between the classified documents cases has been pointed out several times in this thread, yet you continue to point to that as some kind of evidence of equivalence. If you don't want to acknowledge the difference between owning up to a fuckup and intentionally obstructing an investigation to try and cover up your misdeeds, there’s nothing more to be said about that.
If you consider Biden pardoning his son so egregious, I think you’d agree the pardons of the thousand defendants of the violent riot on January 6 would be even more disgraceful? If your cherry picked metric for a good president is “didn’t start a war”, I’ll counter with “didn’t encourage riots to obstruct the peaceful transition of power, then pardon all those involved to intimidate anyone who dares challenge him”
It’s pretty clear to me the only person who Trump cares about is Trump. I don’t understand why anyone would defend a person with such obvious disdain and lack of empathy for people, so I’ll just leave it at that. Enjoy the carnage that Trump leaves behind for the rest of us to pick up and rebuild.
Creating false equivalencies between situations that _sound_ like they might be similar but aren’t the same thing, is one of the logical fallacies most frequently deployed by Trump’s MAGA base. To some extent it’s a waste of time to engage, although I applaud that you attempted to do so in good faith.
> I realize no set of facts will change your mind. The difference between the classified documents cases has been pointed out several times
If new facts come out I might, but the these facts are fairly long in the tooth by now and they aren't persuasive. When it came out that Biden was doing the same thing an already flimsy case fell apart in in the clowny way that things do when Trump is involved. The best part is they just did a big poll over in the US and the verdict came back that they very much prefer Trump and he can do whatever he likes with classified documents.
There is a lesson here for the Dems; if they want to paint their opponent as bumbling and corrupt they shouldn't have appointed someone as bumbling and corrupt as Biden to the top job. They had a good few years and now that decision has gotten them another dose of Trump.
> If your cherry picked metric for a good president is “didn’t start a war”...
I don't know what your complaint is about that, wars are one of the most crippling mistakes that US presidents keep making, both in terms of global and domestic damage done. The resources wasted are gargantuan, the death tolls staggering, the cruelty are unbearable and the cynicism dark. The risks of something going really badly wrong are unacceptably high too. If focusing on that grim stain on America's honour is cherry picking then you should consider doing more of that. It's one of the big issues in the US and an ongoing one.
> It’s pretty clear to me the only person who Trump cares about is Trump.
Yeah we all know. You don't have to tell the right wingers that politicians suck, that is core plank of right-wing theory of governance is that they're all irredeemable scum or close to becoming that. The problem is the leftist delusion that there is a way to consistently find good politicians is what gets them caught flat-footed when someone like Biden gets the spotlight shined upon them, costing arguments credibility.
Biden gave Trump way more leniency about improperly storing classified documents than he gave himself. Because trump didn’t merely improperly store those documents, he stole them and then hid them and then lied about their existence when questioned about them, and then refused to give them back when formally asked for them.
Stop pretending that Trump is the same as Democrats. He is in a league of criminality that he shares with his buddy Putin, and it’s way worse than any we have ever seen in the US.
No, it's pretty major. You're freezing funds to charities who are providing in some cases life-changing/saving services.
Locking them out of THEIR money because some petty fucking despot and his unelected sidekick decides that's the best way to claw back SOME money that was legally granted because fuck it, it'll hurt/anger/annoy some libs along the way, too.
The one good thing is this is going to end the Courts giving 'good faith' waivers to the government prosecutors for everything (oh the cops didn't keep chain of custody on this evidence but that's OK we are going to waive chain of custody requirements because we know you all are acting in good faith is such a BS policy).
Traditionally when people are on an endless campaign of accusation, they are actually up to their ears in whatever they're accusing others of. The anti-gay politician is exposed as gay, the evangelical pastor is leading a life of excess and vice, people talking about fake news fabricate deceptions and try to pass it off as news... This is generally so reliable, you can just change the pronouns from "They" to "We" and get an accurate statement.
I'm pretty sure the actual fraud and abuse here is coming from inside the house. Claiming the richest man in the world isn't motivated by money is like claiming Jeffrey Epstein wasn't motivated by sex.
Judge Chutkan also ordered the Justice Department to provide the court with details about the alleged fraud, “because I don’t have the credible evidence that’s required.”
This whole calling things fraud without actually have any evidence is really starting to get old.