The Trump Card...

[Ragman]

I noticed that there was a large amount of joking and excuses made from her public intoxication. That is what alcoholics do. They make excuses for their actions. Also, often what someone sees publicly from an alcoholic is just the tip of the iceberg of what is really going on with the person.
The hallmarks of alcoholics are they have extremely impaired judgment, they act very irresponsible, and their critical thinking goes to chit.
So I have reason to doubt her present day work.

This is not true, and you know it!
I can guarantee, someone you know, either family, close or extended, work with, however you know them, is an alcoholic and you didn't know.. Guaranteed!

 

[muttly]

This is not true, and you know it!
I can guarantee, someone you know, either family, close or extended, work with, however you know them, is an alcoholic and you didn't know.. Guaranteed!

That’s what I meant by the “tip of the iceberg” thing. You may see a friend having a drink or two at the bar but don’t see the rest of the story when they go home and drink a fifth. So please retract your accusation that I’m lying.

 

[danthewolf00]

It is not true that "federal law is being applied to crimes."

" ... the indictment alleges that Trump:

• Caused false entries to be made in the books and records of the Trump Organization in order to conceal the existence of hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, two women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump.
• Caused false entries to be made in the books and records of the Trump Organization in order to conceal the fact that Trump had inflated the value of his assets for insurance and tax purposes.
• Caused false entries to be made in the books and records of the Trump Organization in order to conceal the fact that Trump had received millions of dollars in loans from Deutsche Bank that he could not have repaid without violating lending covenants.

"... The election law that made the charges against Trump felonies is New York Election Law § 14-100(a), which states that: 'A person who conspires to promote a candidacy by unlawful means is guilty of a felony.'” (Google Bard)

Note that § 14-100(a) is a New York STATE law, as are all other laws under which Trump was charged.

In on sense, Trump already had his day

Per Google Bard:

"... The statute of limitations for felony election fraud in New York is five years. The hush money payments were made in 2016, so the statute of limitations would have expired in 2021. However, the New York State Legislature passed a law in 2021 that extended the statute of limitations for certain election crimes, including felony election fraud. This law was passed specifically to allow the Manhattan District Attorney's Office to bring charges against Trump.

"The statute of limitations for felony election fraud in New York is now 10 years. This means that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office could have brought charges against Trump up until 2026. However, the indictment was filed in 2023, so the statute of limitations does not apply in this case.

"Trump's attorneys have argued that the statute of limitations is unconstitutional, because it violates the right to due process of law. They have also argued that the statute is retroactive, and therefore applies to conduct that occurred before the law was passed.

"The court has not yet ruled on these legal issues. It is not clear how the court will rule."

Trump's argument that the statute of limitations should apply in this case has been formally and properly made to the court.

A ruling on that question is pending. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me fundamentally wrong to change laws and apply them retroactively. That opens the door to all kinds of abuse and unfair acts.

For example, say labor law required overtime to be paid to everyone who works more than 40 hours a week, but that law was changed to revoke the overtime requirement, and the effective date was retroactively applied to begin five years ago. That would allow employers to to claw back the overtime they paid employees for the hours they worked then in good faith, believing they would be paid overtime for that work.

Or say a new law was passed that required all CDL drivers to be on duty driving no more than eight hours a day, and that the fine for driving over that amount is $10 an hour for every hour over eight, and the effective date of that law was retroactively set to begin five years ago. Under that law, logs could be reviewed and drivers could be fined vast sums for doing what was legal then but is illegal now.

Abortion laws are changing in some states these days to outlaw abortions beyond a certain date after pregnancy. If it was allowed to retroactively apply these laws, these states would be allowed to punish women who had abortions before the new law went into effect. And I would not put it past many Republican state legislators to do just that if they thought they could.

Carrying this to the extreme, consider illegal immigrants. The law today provides certain punishments for illegal entry into the US. But if retroactive application of law was allowed, the strident anti-immigration people could work to pass a law that provides the death penalty for illegal entry, with an effective date of five years prior. This would allow lawmakers to solve the immigration problem (as they see it) by killing the illegal immigrants who have been for years stealing jobs from the "real Americans" they think should have them.

Allowing laws to be changed and retroactively applied allows the lawmakers to instantly transform vast classes of innocent people, or a targeted class of one person, into criminals and unfairly place them in legal peril. It creates an abuse of power

The point I make is that in order to let braggs charge trump the state of new York had to change the law to fit the crime....ie: the statute of limitations.

 

[danthewolf00]

This is not true, and you know it!
I can guarantee, someone you know, either family, close or extended, work with, however you know them, is an alcoholic and you didn't know.. Guaranteed!

I've worked in a few bars and know drunks......she is a alcoholic period.

 

[ATeam]

The point I make is that in order to let braggs charge trump the state of new York had to change the law to fit the crime....ie: the statute of limitations.

That point is correct.

 

[ATeam]

I've worked in a few bars and know drunks......she is a alcoholic period.

Thank you for your expert opinion.

 

[Pilgrim]

You know they call that?
Enabling

Here's the inconvenient truth: Dana Nessel is the AG for the state of MI which makes her a highly visible public office holder. It's unthinkable that someone in this position would get falling-down drunk at a huge public event like a college football game. She's 54 years old, not exactly a college freshman. This irresponsible behavior has to make one question her lack of character, judgement and integrity, all necessary characteristics for the chief law enforcement officer of an entire state.

 

[ATeam]

Here's the inconvenient truth: Dana Nessel is the AG for the state of MI which makes her a highly visible public office holder. It's unthinkable that someone in this position would get falling-down drunk at a huge public event like a college football game. She's 54 years old, not exactly a college freshman. This irresponsible behavior has to make one question her lack of character, judgement and integrity, all necessary characteristics for the chief law enforcement officer of an entire state.

No it's not unthinkable. It is in the news almost every day that an elected official makes a major mistake or blunder. In some cases, these are career-ending. In others, the voters forgive the act and move on.

I've never kept track of such things, but I can recall several stories where a judge, or a cop or a mayor or a lawmaker was caught driving drunk. It seldom happens that these people lose their jobs or elected offices over that. It usually happens that they get help or at least pretend to get help, and they continue on in their roles.

While getting drunk in public or getting caught driving drunk is bad for any public official, and while it will certainly cause some people (especially their political opponents) to question their character, judgement and integrity, it is not a deal killer in most cases. The voting public and the law is more tolerant. The focus is on reform, not revenge. That is the inconvenient truth for those who are revenge-oriented.

Note that in the case cited above, Nessel got drunk but did not drive drunk. She committed no crime.

If the behavior is repeated or obviously degrades that person's performance, then they tend to lose their jobs or get voted out.

 

[muttly]

Here's the inconvenient truth: Dana Nessel is the AG for the state of MI which makes her a highly visible public office holder. It's unthinkable that someone in this position would get falling-down drunk at a huge public event like a college football game. She's 54 years old, not exactly a college freshman. This irresponsible behavior has to make one question her lack of character, judgement and integrity, all necessary characteristics for the chief law enforcement officer of an entire state.

Didn’t know she was 54. I thought by her behavior that she was in her late thirties maybe. What does this say also about the enablers around her( staff, assistants) that know about her alcoholism yet still allow her to drink and get drunk in public? They should do better.

 

[muttly]

No it's not unthinkable. It is in the news almost every day that an elected official makes a major mistake or blunder. In some cases, these are career-ending. In others, the voters forgive the act and move on.

I've never kept track of such things, but I can recall several stories where a judge, or a cop or a mayor or a lawmaker was caught driving drunk. It seldom happens that these people lose their jobs or elected offices over that. It usually happens that they get help or at least pretend to get help, and they continue on in their roles.

While getting drunk in public or getting caught driving drunk is bad for any public official, and while it will certainly cause some people (especially their political opponents) to question their character, judgement and integrity, it is not a deal killer in most cases. The voting public and the law is more tolerant. The focus is on reform, not revenge. That is the inconvenient truth for those who are revenge-oriented.

Note that in the case cited above, Nessel got drunk but did not drive drunk. She committed no crime.

If the behavior is repeated or obviously degrades that person's performance, then they tend to lose their jobs or get voted out.

She didn’t drive drunk because she was so blitzed that she was wheelchaired out of the stadium.
Keep finding excuses and enabling.

 

[Ragman]

I've worked in a few bars and know drunks......she is a alcoholic period.

Whoopy do shlt!
Irrelevant.

 

[ATeam]

She didn’t drive drunk because she was so blitzed that she was wheelchaired out of the stadium.
Keep finding excuses and enabling.

Keep trying to condemn her and spinning her prior act into something that somehow diminishes the indictment she, her office, and a grand jury produced.

When the fake electors appear in court, watch to see how many of them cite her drunken football game episode of prior years as the reason why they should be exonerated from the crimes with which they are charged.

The number of felony criminal defendants who will make that argument to the court will be zero. It will be zero because the defendants and their attorneys know it is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Nessel's work product is just fine and this case will proceed just fine too, notwithstanding people's attempts to falsely paint her as a drunk.

 

[coalminer]

Here's the inconvenient truth: Dana Nessel is the AG for the state of MI which makes her a highly visible public office holder. It's unthinkable that someone in this position would get falling-down drunk at a huge public event like a college football game. She's 54 years old, not exactly a college freshman. This irresponsible behavior has to make one question her lack of character, judgement and integrity, all necessary characteristics for the chief law enforcement officer of an entire state.

Are you perfect? Do you make mistakes? Nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes, she is no different.

 

[muttly]

Keep trying to condemn her and spinning her prior act into something that somehow diminishes the indictment she, her office, and a grand jury produced.

When the fake electors appear in court, watch to see how many of them cite her drunken football game episode of prior years as the reason why they should be exonerated from the crimes with which they are charged.

The number of felony criminal defendants who will make that argument to the court will be zero. It will be zero because the defendants and their attorneys know it is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Nessel's work product is just fine and this case will proceed just fine too, notwithstanding people's attempts to falsely paint her as a drunk.

Admitted alcoholic with repeated drinking in public and joked about it afterwards. That certainly points to her judgement. The Feds even declined this case, but she went ahead anyway. Was this decision done while sober? It doesn’t appear so.

 

[muttly]

Are you perfect? Do you make mistakes? Nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes, she is no different.

That’s not the point. It’s about her position as chief law enforcement office holder making decisions to prosecute people with likely impaired judgment.

 

[Pilgrim]

I've never kept track of such things, but I can recall several stories where a judge, or a cop or a mayor or a lawmaker was caught driving drunk. It seldom happens that these people lose their jobs or elected offices over that.

It's not about drunk driving; it's about being so drunk they're unable to walk, and close to passing out - in public.

While getting drunk in public or getting caught driving drunk is bad for any public official, and while it will certainly cause some people (especially their political opponents) to question their character, judgement and integrity, it is not a deal killer in most cases. The voting public and the law is more tolerant. The focus is on reform, not revenge. That is the inconvenient truth for those who are revenge-oriented.

Revenge has nothing to do with it. Democrats will turn a blind eye to it, Republicans will use it against her. If she were Republican, the reverse would apply. Regardless it still reflects on her character, integrity, and especially judgement.

Note that in the case cited above, Nessel got drunk but did not drive drunk. She committed no crime.

She certainly did commit a crime. Just because she didn't drive doesn't get her off the hook. It's common knowledge that public drunkenness is a crime in nearly every city and state in the country. In MI it's a misdemeanor punishable by a up to a year in jail, a fine, probation, or a combination thereof. Wonder why she wasn't arrested by the campus police? Maybe because of her influential position in state government?

"Public intoxication is a serious issue in the state of Michigan, and unlike other states, it is a misdemeanor offense punishable upon conviction with up to a year in jail and/or a fine."

Public Intoxication in Michigan: Legal Definition, Things to Know - Legalopedia

 

[Pilgrim]

Are you perfect? Do you make mistakes? Nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes, she is no different.

Yes she is different; she's the chief law enforcement officer in the state of MI. That's an elected public position that requires higher behavioral standards than those of the average citizen. Besides, there are mistakes and there are BIG mistakes - this was a BIG one made in public.

 

[Ragman]

Besides, there are mistakes and there are BIG mistakes - this was a BIG one made in public.

Yes, this was a big mistake! In fact it was huge! As opposed to a certain U.S. representative that committed massive lies to get elected which is allowed to continue holding their seat.
Oh the hypocrisy!

 

[muttly]

Yes, this was a big mistake! In fact it was huge! As opposed to a certain U.S. representative that committed massive lies to get elected which is allowed to continue holding their seat.
Oh the hypocrisy!

The whataboutism doesn’t really work, AT ALL. We are talking about the chief law enforcement officer with the sole authority and discretion to file criminal charges. It should be done sober and with sound reasoning.

 

[Pilgrim]

Although the two cases aren't relevant, Santos has been stripped of his committee assignments and charged with 13 criminal indictments. That's a start, but he hasn't been convicted of a crime yet. It would take something like that to get the 2/3 votes needed to expel. It's only happened once in the last 20 years, after James Traficant of OH was convicted of multiple felonies. There's no hypocrisy with the Santos case - the legal process is working as it should rather than giving him a pass.