I think this topic could benefit from some non-US perspectives:
Try the babelfish of your choice.
5 Likes
Paywalled.
2 Likes
11 Likes
Not paywalled:
4 Likes
Thanks! I did the same thing, but when I tried to run it through Google Translate I got put into a weird loop that felt quite iffy, so instead I’ve translated just the text:
The charges against Trump are false
The allegation of hush money payment is weak. The ex-president should stand trial for the attempted election manipulationHe attempted to rig the presidential election, orchestrated the storming of the Capitol, and threatened national security by stealing countless classified documents. But Donald Trump is now being accused of a cover-up payment of hush money to an ex-lover.
This is not only absurd, it is also dangerous. Trump may actually have broken the law when he paid porn actress Stormy Daniels $130,000. But if, for the first time in history, an ex-president is to be indicted, it should be for more important reasons. Because otherwise the indictment actually works as what he and his fans have been loudly claiming for months: as a politically motivated act to eliminate an unloved politician.
The prosecution is also likely to be on shaky legal grounds because it attempts to combine the legal situation in the federal and state of New York in an innovative way. This can work well, but it can also easily fail. And then Trump would be politically strengthened again.It would now be all the more important that the most serious allegation against the ex-president soon be indicted: his attempts, documented on tape, to turn around the election results in the state of Georgia with massive pressure. The fact that the New York prosecutor is so much faster than the one in Georgia probably has something to do with their political leanings. This is understandable but problematic. One must now hope that Trump will not find it so easy to portray himself as a victim of justice in the upcoming presidential election campaign.
15 Likes
This seems to be someone who doesn’t understand that as a nation we have a history of finally getting the worst criminals behind bars by nailing them on something ‘smaller’, like tax evasion. Yes, there are more serious crimes – and those indictments are coming, thank you Georgia! – but as such they require more due diligence and a much higher preponderance of facts to succeed.
25 Likes
Strange how nothing in the piece explains that claim. 
This seems to be someone who doesn’t understand that as a nation we have a history of finally getting the worst criminals behind bars by nailing them on something ‘smaller’, like tax evasion.
Yes, whoever wrote it doesn’t seem well versed in orher ways as well the finer points of how prosecution works here. Granted, it’s politically biased at times, but even when not, what “should” happen often doesn’t.
14 Likes
Based on the rest of the article, I’m wondering if that’s a Google Translate issue.
14 Likes
10 Likes
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1642990216238751744
FOX News is told multiple U.S. Secret Service agents connected to Former President Donald Trump have been subpoenaed & are expected to testify before the D.C. grand jury likely on Friday. The grand jury appearances are related to the Special Counsel Jack Smith probe into the handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
15 Likes
2 personal pet peeves getting up me in the news arising from this indictment:
-
Articles saying “ it is politically unwise to go through with this indictment, even if he’s guilty.”Like seriously, my brother in Christ, it drives me insane that rich and famous and politicians get away with stuff all the time that lesser people end up in prison for. Please for maybe just once let justice actually work on someone like that. Oh they’ve never done this to a president before? Yeah well we’ve never had a president do so many blatantly illegal things before.
-
Articles quoting right wingers talking about the prosecutors being “Soros Funded” without inserting a correction or explanation of how F-d up, factually incorrect, and anti-Semitic the statements are. When you just quote without a correction you are amplifying that message. Better not to repeat it at all if you aren’t going to correct it.
I’ve seen both of these things on The Guardian and Slate this week.
19 Likes
Thank you for posting that.
The quoted author’s opinion is full of shit.
As I’ve posted before, this indictment isn’t about covering up an affair. It’s about financial fraud and tax evasion. Any one of us would go to prison for any one of those crimes. He’s being charged with over 30 counts. If he’s not accountable for those crimes then no one is.
17 Likes
Yes, it is:
A better translation here (I think; I am not a native speaker and would be happy to be corrected) would be “The charge against Trump is the wrong one”.
18 Likes
Thank you for clarifying that!
12 Likes
Apparently all 34 charges have been leaked and they are all related to business fraud. I’m taking this with a grain of salt, since T****’s lawyers and T**** himself all seem to know more about it than the Manhattan DA’s office.
It’s also unlikely that all 34 charges would be for one event, unless they were spread out across multiple charges per incident. It would make more sense that they would involve different aspects, like tax evasion, false accounting, submitting false statements to the government, etc.
16 Likes
What is really unlikely is that we have seen all of the material the DA has.
6 Likes
That’s exactly what I was wondering, after reading the rest of the article, as it didn’t seem to follow correctly.
Still, 34 charges is not small potatoes. And Georgia is coming up right behind. Both states need to hit a home run, so better to try him on charges you know you have him dead to rights on, instead of aiming a little too high.
19 Likes
I’m not sure about this. While I absolutely think he should face criminal proceedings for pretty much any of the fuckery he has indulged in since about 1973, I worry that there’s a danger of incrementalism here.
I mean, you try him on a minor charge, get a conviction of less than a year, and then what next? I don’t think it’s incorrect to say that he should be arraigned on all of the crimes he has (pretty much undoubtedly) committed, even if only to nip the “witch hunt” BS in the bud.
Nab him on this, sure, but also make sure that the other charges (being a foreign agent, inciting insurrection, RICO, whatever else you can apply to prove that this guy is the colossal turd he proudly proclaims to be whenever he has access to any form of media) also stick, or you run the risk of the next thirty years being dominated by shitheads saying “TrUmP dId NoThInG wRoNg” a la Pinochet et al.
There’s no easy way out of this, but I don’t think a “softly, softly” approach is necessarily helpful.
4 Likes
I don’t understand how 34 charges in NY State, about to be followed by who knows how many more in Georgia, is a “softly, softly” approach.
12 Likes
they’ll do that anyway
it’s not because liberals are using the wrong words
22 Likes
