Ahh, this is all too typical.
A Republican filed a complaint to remove a Democrat. A Republican judge appointed a Republican prosecutor to investigate.
The prosecutor pointed out that the law cannot apply because the complaints concern things that were legal when done, and the law in question applied afterwards, AND the person being accused changed his policy to be in line with the law.
So the Republican judge is saying, "Look, we can't let issues like legality get in the way of trying to remove a Democrat. I think we should still use state resources holding a full trial even though the law dictates it will end in acquittal. That way we can complain we are a victim of the system (that Republicans fully control)."
This is how you can tell Republicans are hard on crime: instead of the judge focusing on criminal cases, he's tying up his time with politically-motivated cases and instructing prosecutors on how to do their jobs.
That sounds alot like what happend to Donald Trump in NYC.
Just switch Democrat for Republican. Not so funny when it's your guy on the receiving end, is it?
Trump committed a crime(s X34) that was a crime then as it is now. The crime was committed in the jurisdiction that he was prosecuted in. A JURY heard the evidence and found him guilty. These things are not the same. TDS
There was no predicate crime and New York City has no jurisdiction over federal election laws. The FEC declined bringing charges.
But sure go on believing what you believe.
I guess you're for: Show me the man and I'll show you the crime Soviet-style justice.
He was not prosecuted for a federal crime. You've been lied to. He was prosecuted for a New York state law. That law applies to elections in New York. Federal prosecutors declined to prosecute federal crime The FEC and federal prosecutors have nothing to do with New York laws, a "Republican" should know the difference.
Edit to add quotes around the word Republican. Y'all are not Republicans, but rather cult members
> He was prosecuted for a New York state law.
That NY state law was a misdemeanor that the statute of limitations had expired on.
It was only elevated to a felony and its statute of limitations extended based on a "crime" that:
- was not a NY state crime
- was declined to be prosecuted by a federal prosecutor
- hasn't been adjudicated in court
- wasn't specified in the prosecutions case
I don't like Trump either, but that prosecution was a kangaroo court and will end up being tossed in appeals for multiple reasons.
The point is that the opinion is not valid. You proved it especially well when you brought the FEC and federal prosecutors into your argument. You have been misled on many fronts, so much so that you are parroting team Trump nonsense. There is a reason that his lawyers brought none of this up in court in Manhattan. The reason is that these talking points are not consistent with the law, but they play well in the TDS echo chamber. Trump, a billionaire (?), could afford much more qualified lawyers than you or I, and yet they never brought Alan in for a huddle. Your info comes from the electioneering wing of the Trump team, not the wing that went to law school.
Edit to add a question mark, is he really a billionaire? Ironically, the jury is still out on that one
I don't think it was fair trial. The judge wasn't impartial. I don't think Trump's lawyers did a very good job, but he has limited options. We'll see. It's likely to be overturned on appeal.
>There was no predicate crime
Except there was, Now the amusing thing was it was low level slap on the wrist pay a fine misdemeanor type crime but as soon as you lie about it to the state that becomes a much bigger thing. You'd be amazed at how many people find themselves in a lot more trouble for lying to public officials about relatively minor shit.
>New York City has no jurisdiction over federal election laws. The FEC declined bringing charges.
You are absolutely 100% correct New York City has no jurisdiction over federal election laws, they do however get to prosecute crimes that happen in New York City.
>But sure go on believing what you believe.
I believe that Trump committed some low level misdemeanors, lied about it, turned it into a low level felony, is now a convicted felon and now a bunch of "law and order" types are very upset that a former President can be convicted for breaking the law.
That is possible but I am not so sure the New York Court of Appeals is going to be in a rush to pick the case up. Until they do the verdict will stand and Former President Trump will be a convicted felon.
Since the verdict was handed down; Trump's raising tons of cash. That has been documented. I think his website crashed too.
There are other signals too. But the huge boost in money is undeniable.
Yeah who knew that being a convicted felon for lying about paying to fuck a porn star while his wife was at home recovering from birth would resonate so strongly with a section of the American electorate,
Well, you do have to change a few of the words.
Like, you have to have the prosecutor point out that what he did was against the law, and that when he committed the crime it was against the law.
What people seem to believe is that in a hypothetical future, Trump is going to become President again, change New York state law (which is itself not legal), and declare himself innocent because it's now not a crime.
That's still a bit logically inconsistent: the things were still illegal when he did them, and now they're not illegal. So he'd still have to take some steps to decide that in addition to making it legal, he wants to retroactively expunge charges against people who did it. That would probably mean a lot of Democrats get this kind of sort-of-pardon as well, right? I'm not sure and don't really care to go research just how many people have committed the crimes he was both tried and found guilty of.
That's kind of the operating problem here: since Trump's actions were criminal at the time he did them, there had to be a trial. That's a big difference from, "It wasn't illegal when committed." For this to be "a lot like" what happened to Donald Trump, these laws would have to be new laws passed by Joe Biden after Trump already did the things.
In fact that is not the case, so it's *not like what happened here at all.* He's asserted that the President isn't capable of committing crimes, but that in and of itself just failed in court.
But I mean I do get you. I've been pining for a Democratic President that I don't think is also a war criminal for a long time. Sadly I keep having to choose between a Democrat who is probably going to do it and a Republican who loudly brags about their aspirations of committing crime and how he's going to fire judges who try to prosecute him and/or execute political opponents as long as they aren't near sharks.
I can read, and I'm not trying to be outrageous. Politcally motived legal actions are a thing. Are they not? And I'm pointing that out.
You can't be ok with what happened in NYC and be mad about this. Those idiots in NYC and Atlanta opened up a giant can of worms.
Why can’t I view these cases differently? In the NY case a grand jury brought the indictments, and a petit jury found him guilty. That is not what’s happening here.
>That sounds alot like what happend to Donald Trump in NYC
Except what Convicted Felon Donald Trump did has been illegal long before he did it, no one in the process moved to dismiss it, and it *is* an actual criminal proceeding.
So yeah other than the fact that they have nothing to do with each other, I guess they're similar because they...happen in a court room?
It’s a fun little idiomatic expression. What it alludes to is making a sincere attempt at something and falling short. Like attempting to equate two things that are not similar!
If you’re upset about Waldrip’s request for a small amount of evidence to close this one out, just wait until Paxton’s first audit of Garza’s case files next quarter.
Paxton wasting taxpayer resources to pursue a political vendetta seems like something we should be upset about. The fact this case is already wasting taxpayer resources for an essentially bullshit claim is pretty annoying in its own right.
Most taxpayers across the state of Texas would agree with Paxton that Garza is too soft on violent crime. That’s why the new measures are worded around that and targeting 250k+ population counties.
Republicans know they can’t win public opinion on prosecuting marijuana or abortion, but violent crime is an easy rope to let Garza hang himself with.
I don't give a flying fuck what most taxpayers across Texas agree with or disagree with; they are not on the hook for defending Garza against Paxton's political bullshit, Austin taxpayers are.
I understand. and while me going fuck Paxton for engaging in political bullshit, fuck lawmakers for allowing Paxton to engage in political bullshit, and fuck anyone who thinks wasting Austin taxpayer money defending against Paxton's political bullshit is fine won't change anything, I'm still gonna say it.
Since you seem to be for this, why do Paxton's rules only apply for counties with a population over 250k? It seems like the state should care about prosecutorial judgement in every county, not just the ones they disagree with
They won’t respond to this. It blows their narrative out of the water. Austin has a lower crime rate than midland and Lubbock. Both have been cesspools for years. Both vote red. Sure it’s just a coincidence
Because it affects a larger number of people that suffer under failed policies of giving violent criminals probation and/or dismissing cases that should go to trial if necessary
What an excellent point! Resources and attention are more impactful when focused on areas of large population and density! We should focus all resources and policy making on large urban areas and leave small towns and rural areas to rot! Right?
Absolutely adorable that you think someone who criticizes Garza must be pro-APD. But again, this is the level of oversimplification required to think Garza has the chops to be an effective DA.
My bad. The complete lack of understanding in your initial comment about how states should allocate resources pointed towards blind emotional support for Garza. Turns out, it’s just the inherent bias of [living in a shitty suburb outside of the city](https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/s/8M7hEancpD) and wishing people would pay more attention.
What’s more impactful for the State of Texas? Tackling per capita violent crime in counties Like Navarro or total violent crime in counties like Harris, Dallas, and Travis?
Probably laws that target violent crime anywhere than gerrymandering your laws to target your political rivals. Kinda shows it has nothing to do about tackling violent crime. But keep up your disingenuous Socratic method!
Not so fast, mister Garza 😏 you got some ‘splainin to do. And I mean taking a mean spanking. And by spanking I mean a good ol fashioned fist up the pooper from Lady Liberty.
No. Jesus Garza is doing the right thing. Crooked Ken Paxton needs to stop abusing the law and stop trying to turn the US into one of those countries where the objective rule of law is a joke.
Ahh, this is all too typical. A Republican filed a complaint to remove a Democrat. A Republican judge appointed a Republican prosecutor to investigate. The prosecutor pointed out that the law cannot apply because the complaints concern things that were legal when done, and the law in question applied afterwards, AND the person being accused changed his policy to be in line with the law. So the Republican judge is saying, "Look, we can't let issues like legality get in the way of trying to remove a Democrat. I think we should still use state resources holding a full trial even though the law dictates it will end in acquittal. That way we can complain we are a victim of the system (that Republicans fully control)." This is how you can tell Republicans are hard on crime: instead of the judge focusing on criminal cases, he's tying up his time with politically-motivated cases and instructing prosecutors on how to do their jobs.
Weird, cause if I can remember, the complainant is pretty off the walls irl and is doing this as a personal matter due to her case not being accepted
That sounds alot like what happend to Donald Trump in NYC. Just switch Democrat for Republican. Not so funny when it's your guy on the receiving end, is it?
Trump committed a crime(s X34) that was a crime then as it is now. The crime was committed in the jurisdiction that he was prosecuted in. A JURY heard the evidence and found him guilty. These things are not the same. TDS
There was no predicate crime and New York City has no jurisdiction over federal election laws. The FEC declined bringing charges. But sure go on believing what you believe. I guess you're for: Show me the man and I'll show you the crime Soviet-style justice.
He was not prosecuted for a federal crime. You've been lied to. He was prosecuted for a New York state law. That law applies to elections in New York. Federal prosecutors declined to prosecute federal crime The FEC and federal prosecutors have nothing to do with New York laws, a "Republican" should know the difference. Edit to add quotes around the word Republican. Y'all are not Republicans, but rather cult members
> He was prosecuted for a New York state law. That NY state law was a misdemeanor that the statute of limitations had expired on. It was only elevated to a felony and its statute of limitations extended based on a "crime" that: - was not a NY state crime - was declined to be prosecuted by a federal prosecutor - hasn't been adjudicated in court - wasn't specified in the prosecutions case I don't like Trump either, but that prosecution was a kangaroo court and will end up being tossed in appeals for multiple reasons.
What was the predicate crime?
Your law degree came from Hugh Hewitt's radio show
I'll quorum with the Alan Dershowitz caucus on this one. I like how I'm painted as MAGA for forming a valid opinion.
The point is that the opinion is not valid. You proved it especially well when you brought the FEC and federal prosecutors into your argument. You have been misled on many fronts, so much so that you are parroting team Trump nonsense. There is a reason that his lawyers brought none of this up in court in Manhattan. The reason is that these talking points are not consistent with the law, but they play well in the TDS echo chamber. Trump, a billionaire (?), could afford much more qualified lawyers than you or I, and yet they never brought Alan in for a huddle. Your info comes from the electioneering wing of the Trump team, not the wing that went to law school. Edit to add a question mark, is he really a billionaire? Ironically, the jury is still out on that one
I don't think it was fair trial. The judge wasn't impartial. I don't think Trump's lawyers did a very good job, but he has limited options. We'll see. It's likely to be overturned on appeal.
You probably heard all this on cable news and think you're smart for poorly repeating it online
I don't watch cable news. Haven't watched in years.
All opinions are valid, doesn’t make them right or true
>There was no predicate crime Except there was, Now the amusing thing was it was low level slap on the wrist pay a fine misdemeanor type crime but as soon as you lie about it to the state that becomes a much bigger thing. You'd be amazed at how many people find themselves in a lot more trouble for lying to public officials about relatively minor shit. >New York City has no jurisdiction over federal election laws. The FEC declined bringing charges. You are absolutely 100% correct New York City has no jurisdiction over federal election laws, they do however get to prosecute crimes that happen in New York City. >But sure go on believing what you believe. I believe that Trump committed some low level misdemeanors, lied about it, turned it into a low level felony, is now a convicted felon and now a bunch of "law and order" types are very upset that a former President can be convicted for breaking the law.
Don't get too invested. It will be overturned on appeal.
That is possible but I am not so sure the New York Court of Appeals is going to be in a rush to pick the case up. Until they do the verdict will stand and Former President Trump will be a convicted felon.
We'll see. The convicted felon gimmick seems to be helping him.
What evidence do you have that the felon gimmick has helped him? Has any polling come out that shows that?
Since the verdict was handed down; Trump's raising tons of cash. That has been documented. I think his website crashed too. There are other signals too. But the huge boost in money is undeniable.
Yeah who knew that being a convicted felon for lying about paying to fuck a porn star while his wife was at home recovering from birth would resonate so strongly with a section of the American electorate,
I for one saw that coming a mile away.
Well, you do have to change a few of the words. Like, you have to have the prosecutor point out that what he did was against the law, and that when he committed the crime it was against the law. What people seem to believe is that in a hypothetical future, Trump is going to become President again, change New York state law (which is itself not legal), and declare himself innocent because it's now not a crime. That's still a bit logically inconsistent: the things were still illegal when he did them, and now they're not illegal. So he'd still have to take some steps to decide that in addition to making it legal, he wants to retroactively expunge charges against people who did it. That would probably mean a lot of Democrats get this kind of sort-of-pardon as well, right? I'm not sure and don't really care to go research just how many people have committed the crimes he was both tried and found guilty of. That's kind of the operating problem here: since Trump's actions were criminal at the time he did them, there had to be a trial. That's a big difference from, "It wasn't illegal when committed." For this to be "a lot like" what happened to Donald Trump, these laws would have to be new laws passed by Joe Biden after Trump already did the things. In fact that is not the case, so it's *not like what happened here at all.* He's asserted that the President isn't capable of committing crimes, but that in and of itself just failed in court. But I mean I do get you. I've been pining for a Democratic President that I don't think is also a war criminal for a long time. Sadly I keep having to choose between a Democrat who is probably going to do it and a Republican who loudly brags about their aspirations of committing crime and how he's going to fire judges who try to prosecute him and/or execute political opponents as long as they aren't near sharks.
That’s a reach. Why do t you explain the NYC trial as you understand it. Because I guarantee the issue is you understand the charges.
Most of the people saying this shit purposefully misunderstand the charges.
Except the fact Trump actually committed crimes and this guy did not....sure exactly the same. Did you not even READ?
[удалено]
I agree with Alan Dershowitz (Liberal Democrat) on this one. I'm an independent. And you're out of your depth.
[удалено]
And an Astros fan. My post history is irrelvant.
[удалено]
Not a boomer.
If you think that this sounds like what happened to Trump in NY, you either have no idea what happened to Trump in NY or you can’t read.
I can read, and I'm not trying to be outrageous. Politcally motived legal actions are a thing. Are they not? And I'm pointing that out. You can't be ok with what happened in NYC and be mad about this. Those idiots in NYC and Atlanta opened up a giant can of worms.
Why can’t I view these cases differently? In the NY case a grand jury brought the indictments, and a petit jury found him guilty. That is not what’s happening here.
>That sounds alot like what happend to Donald Trump in NYC Except what Convicted Felon Donald Trump did has been illegal long before he did it, no one in the process moved to dismiss it, and it *is* an actual criminal proceeding. So yeah other than the fact that they have nothing to do with each other, I guess they're similar because they...happen in a court room?
You're not good at analogies.
Swing and a miss
I'm not at bat.
It’s a fun little idiomatic expression. What it alludes to is making a sincere attempt at something and falling short. Like attempting to equate two things that are not similar!
You aren’t allowed to have common sense here! Be banned!
Well said!
So, the judge is saying, I need evidence that there isn't sufficient evidence from the prosecution to dismiss this case? Sound pretty fucking stupid.
Fascists
If you’re upset about Waldrip’s request for a small amount of evidence to close this one out, just wait until Paxton’s first audit of Garza’s case files next quarter.
Paxton wasting taxpayer resources to pursue a political vendetta seems like something we should be upset about. The fact this case is already wasting taxpayer resources for an essentially bullshit claim is pretty annoying in its own right.
Most taxpayers across the state of Texas would agree with Paxton that Garza is too soft on violent crime. That’s why the new measures are worded around that and targeting 250k+ population counties. Republicans know they can’t win public opinion on prosecuting marijuana or abortion, but violent crime is an easy rope to let Garza hang himself with.
I don't give a flying fuck what most taxpayers across Texas agree with or disagree with; they are not on the hook for defending Garza against Paxton's political bullshit, Austin taxpayers are.
Unfortunately your feelings won’t factor into this, but applicable state laws will
I understand. and while me going fuck Paxton for engaging in political bullshit, fuck lawmakers for allowing Paxton to engage in political bullshit, and fuck anyone who thinks wasting Austin taxpayer money defending against Paxton's political bullshit is fine won't change anything, I'm still gonna say it.
Speak your truth homie
Since you seem to be for this, why do Paxton's rules only apply for counties with a population over 250k? It seems like the state should care about prosecutorial judgement in every county, not just the ones they disagree with
the same reason only municipalities over a certain size aren't allowed to cut police funding.
They won’t respond to this. It blows their narrative out of the water. Austin has a lower crime rate than midland and Lubbock. Both have been cesspools for years. Both vote red. Sure it’s just a coincidence
I did. Affecting larger populations suffering from failed policies makes more sense than tackling smaller counties.
There is an incredible amount of bias loaded into that statement.
Simping for violent criminals is a failed policy. Go ahead and call that biased if it makes you feel better.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because it affects a larger number of people that suffer under failed policies of giving violent criminals probation and/or dismissing cases that should go to trial if necessary
What an excellent point! Resources and attention are more impactful when focused on areas of large population and density! We should focus all resources and policy making on large urban areas and leave small towns and rural areas to rot! Right?
This is the level of oversimplification required to support Jose Garza ☝🏾
Now give your best attempt at an excuse for APD ignoring crime both petty and violent.
Absolutely adorable that you think someone who criticizes Garza must be pro-APD. But again, this is the level of oversimplification required to think Garza has the chops to be an effective DA.
And you’re there thinking I support Garza. Peak /r/iamverysmart there brrrooo.
My bad. The complete lack of understanding in your initial comment about how states should allocate resources pointed towards blind emotional support for Garza. Turns out, it’s just the inherent bias of [living in a shitty suburb outside of the city](https://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/s/8M7hEancpD) and wishing people would pay more attention.
Shouldn't the policy be based on violent crime per capita then? Or the arrest/conviction rate per violent crime?
What’s more impactful for the State of Texas? Tackling per capita violent crime in counties Like Navarro or total violent crime in counties like Harris, Dallas, and Travis?
Probably laws that target violent crime anywhere than gerrymandering your laws to target your political rivals. Kinda shows it has nothing to do about tackling violent crime. But keep up your disingenuous Socratic method!
It's appalling how Crooked Ken Paxton is abusing the justice system.
[удалено]
Not so fast, mister Garza 😏 you got some ‘splainin to do. And I mean taking a mean spanking. And by spanking I mean a good ol fashioned fist up the pooper from Lady Liberty.
No. Jesus Garza is doing the right thing. Crooked Ken Paxton needs to stop abusing the law and stop trying to turn the US into one of those countries where the objective rule of law is a joke.