Trump Guilty

[toucana]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Ethics, too ✌🏼

His lawyers are already appealing.

Trump's lawyers can't file any appeals until sentencing has taken place on July 11th  - because the trial isn't complete until that has taken place. This point was covered in a Q&A with former prosecutor Glen Kirschner on Brian Tyler Cohen's channel.

 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

WhooHooo!

At least R Nixon had the integrity to quit the Presidency; this joker is still running.

I guess they'll re-open Alcatraz for the Presidential debates, and possible inauguration speech.

Many other republicans wouldn’t support him had he continued, in stark contrast with the current cult known as the GOP. You can’t be a member these days unless you declare the 2020 election stolen and myriad other “alternate truths”

10 hours ago, MigL said:

The Supreme Court should be ashamed of themselves for letting someone convicted of an election crime to still run.

As compromised as the Roberts court is, it’s not laid out in the Constitution so this isn’t their fault. It’s the republican in congress who failed to convict him when he was impeached, or otherwise hold him accountable.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s the republican in congress who failed to convict him when he was impeached, or otherwise hold him accountable.

Haley coming out and endorsing him was example number one of how tied to this cult of personality the whole party has become. Governor Hogan seems to be the only one with enough of a spine to continue stating what's factually true, and he's paying a price for it. But when Haley came out to endorse? I literally shook my head and palmed my face. 

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Many other republicans wouldn’t support him had he continued, in stark contrast with the current cult known as the GOP. You can’t be a member these days unless you declare the 2020 election stolen and myriad other “alternate truths”

I'm hoping someone in the media can do a better job of pointing out that this case was a complete slam dunk, and similar cases almost always end the same way. This was no witch hunt, it was pretty boiler plate legal methodology. The fact that the Republicans are making more claims about unfairness needs to be offset by the reality of the court system. The evidence made this a foregone conclusion, and the jury was unanimous about that.

I have a feeling they're making this stink because eventually TFG is going to be sentenced without facing jail time, which is also typical with these types of first-time crimes, but they want it to seem like the judge waved prison because it's so unfair. I think many in the GOP will look at big fines as no big deal.

[TheVat]

31 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

have a feeling they're making this stink because eventually TFG is going to be sentenced without facing jail time, which is also typical with these types of first-time crimes, but they want it to seem like the judge waved prison because it's so unfair. I think many in the GOP will look at big fines as no big deal.

I hope that the sentencing could include some hours of community service, perhaps cleaning the bathrooms in the subway.   And no letting him just toss rolls of paper towel to the other cleaners.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I have a feeling they're making this stink because eventually TFG is going to be sentenced without facing jail time, which is also typical with these types of first-time crimes, but they want it to seem like the judge waved prison because it's so unfair. I think many in the GOP will look at big fines as no big deal.

They also have learned that the simple act of repeating falsehoods can make things "feel" real (which apparently is the current benchmark of things). Essentially all bases are covered. If it is a fine or probation, it is evidence that the whole thing is a witch hunt and no big deal in the first place. They are being persecuted (which apparently everyone wants to be and therefore feels real). If he gets the maximum sentence, it is clearly evidence of a witch hunt and shows that conservatives are persecuted. As apparently nothing exists beyond short-term memory (and I have doubts about that), one cane remodel reality at any moment, which is incredibly convenient if one does not want to take personal responsibility for anything.

I feel like that folks think folks think that politicians have to do this complicated maneuvering and mind manipulation and so one to get folks on their side. Meanwhile current predominantly right-wing populists realized that just making stuff up on the spot works even better. Having no shame somehow became a superpower over the years.

17 hours ago, geordief said:

I did ,in my own mind discount the chances of an acquittal    but was very taken aback by   the unanimity of the guilty verdict.

Missed that part earlier, but IIRC in the US, criminal cases does not allow for majority convictions (that would only work for civil cases). I.e. the verdict had to be unanimous, otherwise it would be considered a hung jury. I think Cruz in an interview mentioned something to the effect that one of the jurors should stand up and take one for the team to create a mistrial. Which basically tells you all you need to know about their regard for law and order.

[MigL]

I would have thought D Trump would just pay off one of the jurors, resulting in a hung jury.
But knowing him, he would have used campaign financing, instead of his own money 😄 .

[StringJunky]

17 hours ago, iNow said:

So much so that many in the legal community are suggesting she’s guilty of conspiracy. 

In a sophisticated society, ostensibly the most advanced country on the planet, having an openly partisan judicial system should not be leader of the free world. It seems, even as a convicted felon, he could be POTUS. That is a travesty.

Edited May 31 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

33 minutes ago, MigL said:

I would have thought D Trump would just pay off one of the jurors, resulting in a hung jury.
But knowing him, he would have used campaign financing, instead of his own money 😄 .

Also, he would post it on social media how clever he was for doing that, resulting in yet another lawsuit.

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Haley coming out and endorsing him was example number one of how tied to this cult of personality the whole party has become. Governor Hogan seems to be the only one with enough of a spine to continue stating what's factually true, and he's paying a price for it. But when Haley came out to endorse? I literally shook my head and palmed my face. 

I actually started to have a modicum of respect for Hayley when she stood up to Trump. Seeing her sign US bombs on a pallet in Israel, and simultaneously seeing children in various states of bodily mutilation from US weaponry, has put her down the ethical toilet, as far as I'm concerned. She's on par with the worst Zionists. This is not intended for the conversation to segue into that debacle.

 

Edited May 31 by StringJunky
corrections

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I have a feeling they're making this stink because eventually TFG is going to be sentenced without facing jail time

Probably, but not because he’s shown contrition and shown that he’s “learned his lesson” 

If it’s just a fine, which someone else will pay, is that enough for interfering with an election?

[LaurieAG]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

If it’s just a fine, which someone else will pay, is that enough for interfering with an election?

Just out of interest, is there anybody here who voted for Trump previously and will be voting in November, who will actually change their vote due due to this?

[CharonY]

12 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I'm hoping someone in the media can do a better job of pointing out that this case was a complete slam dunk, and similar cases almost always end the same way.

I think the main (and off the top of my head only) issue with the case is that the criminality of it hinged on a state law that has not been tested yet (or in other words, it was tested in this case). The law in question (basically prohibiting conspiring in the use of unlawful means to influence election). Without that, he would have been (clearly) guilty of misdemeanors only. 

The actual acts and their role in the violations on the other hand were fairly clear (and apparently perceived as such by the jury). But this does not stop the GOP from pretending to be stupid and even those with legal training claiming that no one knows what he is being accused of (which is of course preposterous).

 

[toucana]

As a newly convicted felon, Donald Trump can no longer travel abroad to at least 37 foreign countries -  according to a recent Newsweek report based on data from the World Population Review:

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-travel-ban-1906686

These countries include Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and Australia. A number of other countries also reserve the right to refuse entry pending border checks on criminal records: these include Israel, Mexico, Turkey, Ukraine, South Africa, South Korea, and the Philippines.

The good news for Trump is that Russia and North Korea aren’t currently on the ‘no-fly’ list. He can always potter off to either the Kremlin or Pyongyang, and hang out  with his best mates Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un.

[exchemist]

18 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I'm hoping someone in the media can do a better job of pointing out that this case was a complete slam dunk, and similar cases almost always end the same way. This was no witch hunt, it was pretty boiler plate legal methodology. The fact that the Republicans are making more claims about unfairness needs to be offset by the reality of the court system. The evidence made this a foregone conclusion, and the jury was unanimous about that.

I have a feeling they're making this stink because eventually TFG is going to be sentenced without facing jail time, which is also typical with these types of first-time crimes, but they want it to seem like the judge waved prison because it's so unfair. I think many in the GOP will look at big fines as no big deal.

Quite. It was a jury trial so pretty hard to see how the decision can have been "rigged". 

The tragedy of this is that Trump has succeeded in making it normal now in the US to regard its justice system as politically motivated. That indicates a potentially catastrophic loss of trust  in one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic state. This may have huge and deeply malign consequences for the country.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

The tragedy of this is that Trump has succeeded in making it normal now in the US to regard its justice system as politically motivated. That indicates a potentially catastrophic loss of trust  in one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic state. This may have huge and deeply malign consequences for the country.

Indeed, and he's making a mockery of the first amendment, which in the cold light of day would be a specious mistake...

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, and he's making a mockery of the first amendment, which in the cold light of day would be a specious mistake...

How has he violated, or otherwise made a mockery of,  the first amendment?

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

It was a jury trial so pretty hard to see how the decision can have been "rigged". 

Doesn’t matter to the MAGAts. Saying it was rigged is a trigger for the rabid response team. Rationality or factuality don’t enter into it.

[iNow]

9 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

Just out of interest, is there anybody here who voted for Trump previously and will be voting in November, who will actually change their vote due due to this?

Those on the margins, or those who don’t like Trump but like Biden even less, will be less likely to cast their vote for Trump. Yes, it’s marginal, but with the electoral college system this race will be won or lost based on a few hundred votes in states like Wisconsin and Michigan. 

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

It was a jury trial so pretty hard to see how the decision can have been "rigged". 

Not only that, but the jury was picked with involvement from Trumps own legal team. They helped select the jurors in the first place, but as always in our modern dystopic political arena: 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Doesn’t matter to the MAGAts. Saying it was rigged is a trigger for the rabid response team. Rationality or factuality don’t enter into it.

 

[geordief]

20 hours ago, CharonY said:

They also have learned that the simple act of repeating falsehoods can make things "feel" real (which apparently is the current benchmark of things). Essentially all bases are covered. If it is a fine or probation, it is evidence that the whole thing is a witch hunt and no big deal in the first place. They are being persecuted (which apparently everyone wants to be and therefore feels real). If he gets the maximum sentence, it is clearly evidence of a witch hunt and shows that conservatives are persecuted. As apparently nothing exists beyond short-term memory (and I have doubts about that), one cane remodel reality at any moment, which is incredibly convenient if one does not want to take personal responsibility for anything.

I feel like that folks think folks think that politicians have to do this complicated maneuvering and mind manipulation and so one to get folks on their side. Meanwhile current predominantly right-wing populists realized that just making stuff up on the spot works even better. Having no shame somehow became a superpower over the years.

Missed that part earlier, but IIRC in the US, criminal cases does not allow for majority convictions (that would only work for civil cases). I.e. the verdict had to be unanimous, otherwise it would be considered a hung jury. I think Cruz in an interview mentioned something to the effect that one of the jurors should stand up and take one for the team to create a mistrial. Which basically tells you all you need to know about their regard for law and order.

Well(Trump's advocate here) that is permitted ,surely.If a juror honestly  disagrees with the other 11 is he or she not duty bound to vote accordingly?

I don't see how that is "taking one for the team"

Of course they can also be persuaded but if only 11 out of 12 is required then that should be the law.

The unanimity  impressed me ,whatever was said in the jury room that  the verdict was strong.

Any appeal might lean on the judge's instructions.

I like the fact that he gave them a choice of 3  crimes  but perhaps they might say it was too innovative?

[swansont]

16 minutes ago, geordief said:

I don't see how that is "taking one for the team"

It’s not about honest belief. If the juror knew he was guilty but voted not guilty because they placed loyalty to Trump above their sworn duty as a juror, and dealing with any blowback. (Much like the modern GOP, placing duty to party above duty to country)

Cruz is tacitly admitting that Trump is guilty (if that statement is accurate)

[geordief]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

If the juror knew he was guilty but voted not guilty because they placed loyalty to Trump above their sworn duty as a juror, and dealing with any blowback. (Much like the modern GOP, placing duty to party above duty to country)

Cruz is tacitly admitting that Trump is guilty (if that statement is accurate)

Oh ,I didn't realize Cruz may have been suggesting anything like that.(or that anyone could imagine such turpitude)

Can see why even Trump despised him if that is really the case.(of course despisal for Trump is merely transactional)

 

[Airbrush]

This, of course, has little impact on his voters.  Don't forget that other guy who tried to overthrow his govt, was captured, taken to court, and because of his oratory in court avoided the death penalty for high treason, and was sentenced to 5 years in prison, but was pardoned after one year.

"Hitler's vitriolic beer hall speeches began attracting regular audiences. He became adept at using populist themes, including the use of scapegoats, who were blamed for his listeners' economic hardships.^{[106][107][108]} Hitler used personal magnetism and an understanding of crowd psychology to his advantage while engaged in public speaking.^[109][110] Historians have noted the hypnotic effect of his rhetoric on large audiences, and of his eyes in small groups.^[

On 8 November 1923, Hitler and the SA stormed a public meeting of 3,000 people organized by Kahr in the Bürgerbräukeller, a beer hall in Munich. Interrupting Kahr's speech, he announced that the national revolution had begun and declared the formation of a new government with Ludendorff.^[117] Retiring to a back room, Hitler, with his pistol drawn, demanded and subsequently received the support of Kahr, Seisser, and Lossow.^[117] Hitler's forces initially succeeded in occupying the local Reichswehr and police headquarters, but Kahr and his cohorts quickly withdrew their support. Neither the Army nor the state police joined forces with Hitler.^[118] The next day, Hitler and his followers marched from the beer hall to the Bavarian War Ministry to overthrow the Bavarian government, but police dispersed them.^[119] Sixteen Nazi Party members and four police officers were killed in the failed coup.^[120]

On 1 April, Hitler was sentenced to five years' imprisonment at Landsberg Prison.^[124] There, he received friendly treatment from the guards, and was allowed mail from supporters and regular visits by party comrades. Pardoned by the Bavarian Supreme Court, he was released from jail on 20 December 1924, against the state prosecutor's objections.^[125] Including time on remand, Hitler served just over one year in prison."

Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia

Edited June 1 by Airbrush

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Saying it was rigged is a trigger for the rabid response team

Clever phrase.  

The voters that seem to matter now are that narrow sliver of swing voters who will have to decide if they can entrust their future to a convicted felon who lies constantly - except for when he truthfully outlines his plans to be a dictator.  I marvel that such a bloc of voters can still exist.  As others have alluded to, it might be more a bloc of nonvoters - people who voted for Trump before but can't pull the lever again.  I.e. those who change the margin by one instead of two, sitting it all out instead of switching sides.

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I marvel that such a bloc of voters can still exist.

It’s part of a broader global trend where individual values and principles get replaced with fear and simplistic answers to massively complex and existentially challenging questions. Monolithic bogeymen are easier than fluid dynamics  

The world is flatter and more interconnected than ever, and our collective daily experiences involve active war zones, rapidly spreading pandemics, Terminator style AI, and disastrous destructive climate change that is both worsening and driving drought and famine induced migration of whole swaths of the population. 

This is the threat and risk landscape in which we currently exist, one where the survival of our children and grandchildren is genuinely in question, and where for tens upon tens of millions even the availability of food to feed ourselves today is often uncertain. 

So, to overcome the natural human feelings of anxiety and fear this rightfully creates, many people turn to simple answers and, while it’s false, tend to find comfort in the authoritarian arms and words of hateful strongmen. 

We’re just apes with grocery stores and computers, basically, and the silver back quarterback still appeals to us more than the problem solving pencil geek. 

The right wing is rising on a current of fear, blaming “the other” to whip up frothy masses instead of driving solutions to the aforementioned disasters happening all around. It’s easier, and in a lot of ways we’re a mostly lazy species who prefers simplicity. I know I do. 

Edited June 1 by iNow

[swansont]

Line from Ken White, aka popehat

“Susan Collins said it was outrageous that Donald Trump was convicted of 34 counts since he clearly learned his lesson after the first one.”