ChiGoose

Why do this? Easy: it’s capitalism. They are going after a market to make money.

https://newrepublic.com/article/119900/texas-voter-id-allows-handgun-licenses-not-student-ids https://www.vote.org/voter-id-laws/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-01/alabama-closes-dmv-offices-a-year-after-voter-id-law-kicks-in https://www.npr.org/2012/02/01/146204308/why-millions-of-americans-have-no-government-id https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/18/voter-id-poor-black-americans https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-february-2023

Buddy, we don’t even know what the charges are yet.

There is zero reason that a law setting state standards for IDs shouldn’t also mandate that state school IDs meet those standards. Unless the goal isn’t to have people vote. Some states will accept a hunting license but not a school ID. I find that interesting. There are entire counties with no place to get a state issued ID. In rural areas, that means people can have to travel significant distances to get one.

I think there’s a compromise to be had that improves our electoral system but it’d require the GOP to accept voter ID rules that would enfranchise people. So I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Perfect encapsulation of modern conservative “thought.” This can is a limited edition made for a single event in Canada. Somehow, that context is completely missing because actually looking something up to ensure you have it correct before saying something is antithetical to the modern conservative movement.

Trans issues are being forced upon us by the World Economic Forum and the World Monuments Fund?

Next thing you know, anyone can be indicted just because they committed crimes! What a world that would be!

Actually the issue is that when the GOP goes to institute voter ID laws, they do so in ways that ensures it disenfranchises voters they don’t like. Sometimes they don’t allow student IDs, even at state schools because they don’t want college students voting. Sometimes they shut down the DMV offices in majority minority areas so people have to travel to get an ID. They’re not trying to stop the almost non-existent in-person voter fraud. They’re trying to make it just a little bit harder for “the others” to vote. If they proposed a voter ID law that ensured that every American could easily obtain the required ID, it’d probably pass. But they don’t because that’s not what they actually want.

Meanwhile, the GOP is set on nominating a guy who lost them the House, the Senate, and the White House and is facing serious legal jeopardy and potential jail time.

A big part of it is creating an in-group and out-groups. This allows them to demonize the “other” to scare people in the in-group to supporting their preferred policies. Combine with the hierarchical focus you’ve pointed out and you have a superior in-group against inferior out-groups. It’s a very effective tool. Think about the way people here talk about “the left,” “liberals,” etc. and who are considered “true” or “real” Americans. That kind of language isn’t nearly as common with liberals who talk more about Republican officials and policies than actual Republican voters. Transpeople are just the latest in a string of out-groups demonized for political leverage. Same with drag performers. While children’s drag brunches have all of the sexuality of a Chuck E Cheese show, demonizing it as some sort of sexual grooming thing triggers the in-group to action. It’s manipulative and dishonest as hell (not to mention dangerous), but it works.

Well, if it was considered at the constitutional convention (and I have no idea if it was), I would assume the thought was that the Electoral College would prevent a felon from being voted in. In addition to being a compromise for the benefit of the slave states, the EC was designed as a backstop against a charlatan whipping up the emotions of the masses. Clearly, it’s been an abject failure of an institution.

I don’t believe that’s true. There isn’t anything that I’m aware of that prohibits a felon from being elected president.

Oh yeah, PLENTY of that too.

Dangerously high levels of copium in here…

As I said, we don’t know what they know. Best to just wait until Tuesday before speculating wildly.

Also “Lamar” Hamlin

A couple of things here. For one, impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Nobody can lose their liberty or their rights through impeachment, and politicians may move forward with an impeachment they believe they will lose for political or other reasons. This indictment is a legal process. Trump's liberty is at risk and the stakes are higher for him than they were when he faced impeachment. However, unlike a politician, the DA's job often depends on securing convictions. This is why prosecutors often only bring charges they are confident that they can win. The downsides of losing a big case, especially this one, greatly outweigh whatever they may gain from a quixotic indictment with little chance of success. You also seem to be implying that this is all part of a big liberal plot to get Trump. We can say for certain that nobody is pulling the strings here because if they were, this would not be the first case to have Trump indicted. Both Jack Smith and Fani Willis have much stronger, and more important cases. If there was a great plot afoot here, one of them would have indicted first. The NY grand jury is supposed to go on a month's long break. They never would have held the vote before that break if this was a coordinated effort. I know it seems unbelievable to many people here, but could the real reason behind the prosecution simply be that the DA believes he can prove a crime was committed?

Oh, I don’t care about the GOP impeaching Biden because of this. I think it’s irrelevant. I think that this GOP would impeach Biden for ordering the same meal as his wife at a restaurant if they thought it would help them. We cannot decide how to enforce the law based on how other people may react to enforcement.

Bringing a charge against the former president of the United States on a case you expect to lose would be a profoundly stupid thing for anyone to do. Seems incredibly unlikely.

I think that is a pretty solid assumption. They may have provided his attorneys with a summary (i.e. “We are looking at five charges of X, three of Y, etc.). In any case, we’ll all know on Tuesday.

There are different ways that the statute of limitations might extend (called “tolling”) including the unavailability doctrine mentioned above. Another is the continuing wrong doctrine. In this Trump case, if the payments to Cohen to reimburse him for paying Daniel’s was in installments, the statute of limitations would run from the date of the last payment. That is, each new payment resets the statute of limitations. So if the prosecution has evidence that the payments to Cohen continued into early 2018, that would be another way to satisfy the statute of limitations.

In times like these it’s helpful to remember that there is often a difference between what is disclosed to the parties versus what is disclosed to the public. It is likely that Trump’s lawyers know more about the charges than we do. Of course the talking heads need to fill the airtime, so we’ll have just rampant speculation between now and when the indictment is unsealed. My suggestion: we can assume there is at least one charge of falsifying business records and one other charge of a different crime. Reporting is that there are 30+ charges including at least one felony. But beyond that, just sit tight and wait for the actual indictment to be released before wading too far into speculation and predictions.

I’m not looking to Congress for intelligent discourse.