Trump's legal woes

LaurieAG said:
I can't figure it out either. according to this thread there's one bunch of people who are shining white saints and there's another group who are fiendish evil devils and those stupid rednecks and deplorables can't tell the difference so they will probably vote for the devil despite what the media and their betters have to say about things. It's kinda like being robbed of an election, how terrible. ;)
Click to expand...
I don't know where you got the bit about the shining white saints.

Also, I don't think it's that the redneck deplorables can't tell the difference. It's more that they don't care about the difference.

It always surprises me when people actively work against their own long-term best interests, but it's actually not that uncommon. If one acts in a bubble of disinformation and lies, one is far more likely to make poor choices - even self-destructive ones.
 
In many cases it's a sign of integrity that one works against their own interests. People often say the poor shouldn't vote for fiscally responsible policies because those policies are trying to give them money.

They may realize that it's better to be fiscally responsible and vote against the party that is always giving someone something.

Your family may farm tobacco but you realize that voting for policies that lead to less smoking is still a good thing to do.
 
I'm not sure you're following what this conversation is about, Seattle. Maybe read some of the thread and get yourself up to speed.
 
billvon said:
Hitler even had his own Jan 6th, called the Beer Hall Putsch. It was a failed coup attempt, and he was later charged for the crime. In Germany, however, the legal system worked a little better than ours, and he was found guilty and sentenced to nine months in prison. He used the trials as a political platform; he never spoke to the case, but instead used his time on the stand to deliver political speeches, a strategy which has worked for both Hitler and Trump.
Click to expand...
In "fairness", the Beer Hall Putsch was less violent than January 6th.

To me, it seems that very few are taking the threat of violence all that seriously. I don't understand this. Personally, I don't think that violent rhetoric alone is indicative of much. But when combined with condoning violence, promises and threats of violence, and even various forms of sanctioned violence (Kyle Rittenhouse), you ignore at your peril.

The Project 2025 guy says "we" are in the midst of the second American Revolution, but it shall "remain bloodless, if the Left allows." Then AP prints this crap:
Donald Trump distanced himself Friday from Project 2025, a massive proposed overhaul of the federal government drafted by longtime allies and former officials in his administration, days after the head of the think tank responsible for the program suggested there would be a second American Revolution.

“I know nothing about Project 2025,” Trump posted on his social media website. “I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”
Click to expand...
apnews.com

Trump disavows Project 2025 transition plan after a key official calls for a new American Revolution

Former President Donald Trump is seeking to distance himself from a plan for a massive overhaul of the federal government drafted by some of his former administration officials.
apnews.com apnews.com
(emphasis mine)

Right. And Trump never met E Jean Carroll, and he didn't know Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump didn't "distance" himself from shit. He simply spewed a bunch of nonsense, as usual, and the proof is right there: "I have no idea who is behind it."
 
parmalee said:
To me, it seems that very few are taking the threat of violence all that seriously.
Click to expand...
I'm taking it seriously. But what am I going to do? Point out that all Trump's promises are lies? Done that. Contribute to organizations (like VoteVets) that counteract his propaganda? Did that. What else? Get lots of guns?
 
parmalee said:
The Project 2025 guy says "we" are in the midst of the second American Revolution, but it shall "remain bloodless, if the Left allows."
Click to expand...
MAGA gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson apparently disagrees; during a diatribe (in a CHURCH at that) he said the following:

“Some folks need killin. It’s time for somebody to say it. It’s not a matter of vengeance. It’s not a matter of being mean or spiteful. It’s a matter of necessity!” The people who needed killing, according to him, included “people who have evil intent”, “wicked people” people “torturing and murdering and raping” and socialists. One wonders if this therefore applies to Trump, an ajudicated rapist.

So much for the Sixth Commandment. Maybe there's an exception for MAGA.
 
billvon said:
I'm taking it seriously. But what am I going to do? Point out that all Trump's promises are lies? Done that. Contribute to organizations (like VoteVets) that counteract his propaganda? Did that. What else? Get lots of guns?
Click to expand...

It's more that I would think that an emphasis upon the violence Trump and the GOP promise would take a more prominent role in Democratic messaging. American politics have long been characterized by lurid attack ads on one's opponents--oftentimes, with a whole lotta hyperbole thrown in for good measure. With Trump and crew, hyperbole isn't even necessary.

That said, Trump supporters being ill-informed isn't so much the issue here, at least with respect to violence: They know Trump is a serial rapist; they just don't care. They know their party favors violent "solutions" with respect to immigrants, "socialists", et al; that's partly why they support them.

In light of that, well, I don't know. A lot of people I know with kids have said that having kids has sort of compelled them to at least try to be more optimistic. I understand that, of course, but how exactly do you "try" to be more optimistic?
 
Just in: Judge Aileen Cannon - the seemingly unashamedly biased Trump-appointee who has been overseeing and facilitating the delays to the Mar-a-Lago / Classified Documents case in Florida - has just dismissed the case entirely on the basis that the Special Prosecutor (SP) has not been legally appointed.

You may be aware that in the 6-3 immunity ruling recently given, Judge Thomas gave his own additional opinion, not postively supported by the others (i.e. noone actually commented on it, positively or negatively), that stated that in his view the Special Prosecutor Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed. Noone had asked for this issue to be addressed. Noone had raised it. No arguments were heard regarding it. It was simply Thomas' way of telling Aileen Cannon that she should dismiss that case on those grounds, and that should the issue ever get to the Supreme Court then her ruling would have his support. It was a completely unwarranted comment in the immunity ruling by Thomas, with no bearing on the matter for which they were ruling, and simply more evidence of his unethical and biased behaviour. But that is an aside.

Now, as to what the current law around such appointments may be, I fully expect that should the case get to the Supreme Court that it will be determined 6-3 that his appointment is unlawful, and that they will, as with the recent immunity case, pre-determine the result they want and simply reverse-engineer their arguments to fit.

More immediately will be how Jack Smith, the SP in question, responds to the dismissing of the case. I imagine he will almost immediately file an appeal, and also now seek to get Aileen Cannon removed from the case, should it proceed.
 
Update: U.S. v. Trump (No. 23-3228)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has returned United States v. Trump (23-3228), in re the Wednesday Pusch, to Judge Tanya Chutkin.
 
The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a written opinion upholding the US$5 million award that the Manhattan jury granted to E Jean Carroll for defamation and sexual abuse.

The magazine columnist had testified at a 2023 trial that Trump had attacked her after entering an upscale department store dressing room in 1996. Trump skipped the trial after repeatedly denying the attack ever happened.

To be clear, there have been two defamation trials related to this, plus the appeal that the Court of Appeals has just dismissed, which related to the first trial. In the first trial, E Jean Carroll was awarded $5 million, based on the jury's finding that Trump sexually abused her. The second action was brought by E Jean Carroll following further defamatory comments made by Trump in 2019, after Carroll made her accusations publicly in a memoir. The second action resulted in a further award of US$83.3 million against Trump. In that case, the jury was instructed by the judge to accept the first jury's finding that Trump had sexually abused Carroll.

In the latest ruling, a three-judge panel of the Appeals court rejected claims by Trump's lawyers that trial Judge Lewis A Kaplan had made multiple decisions that spoiled the trial, including by permitting two other women who had accused Trump of sexually abusing them to testify. The judge also had allowed the jury to view the infamous Access Hollywood tape in which Trump boasted in 2005 about grabbing women's genitals because when someone is a star, "you can do anything."

"We conclude that Mr Trump has not demonstrated that the district court erred in any of the challenged rulings," the Second Circuit said. "Further, he has not carried his burden to show that any claimed error or combination of claimed errors affected his substantial rights as required to warrant a new trial."

Trump has also appealed the second defamation action, but that appeal has not yet been heard.

During appeals arguments in September, Trump lawyer D John Sauer said testimony from witnesses who recalled Carroll telling them about the 1996 encounter with Trump immediately afterward was improper because the witnesses had "egregious bias" against Trump. The attorney said the judge also should have excluded the testimony of the two women who said Trump committed similar acts of sex abuse against them in the 1970s and in 2005, which Trump has also denied.

The Second Circuit Appeals Court wrote: "In each of the three encounters, Mr. Trump engaged in an ordinary conversation with a woman he barely knew, then abruptly lunged at her in a semi-public place and proceeded to kiss and forcefully touch her without her consent. The acts are sufficiently similar to show a pattern."

It also said the Access Hollywood tape was "directly corroborative" of the testimony by the women of the pattern of behaviour they experienced.

(Source for this: the Associated Press).
 
So seems he'll likely be getting an "unconditional discharge" of his felony convictions. Basically zero punishment but the criminal record remains.
Sure, he's 78 and would be 82 before any punishment would be served, and in many ways the fact of him being a felon will last longer in the history records than any subsequent punishment. And that there has been no actual punishment won't lead to him being judged by history to be any better a person.
But the conviction itself seems an insufficient punishment for 34 felonies. How many other people would receive such leniency?
 
Sarkus said:
So seems he'll likely be getting an "unconditional discharge" of his felony convictions. Basically zero punishment but the criminal record remains.
Sure, he's 78 and would be 82 before any punishment would be served, and in many ways the fact of him being a felon will last longer in the history records than any subsequent punishment. And that there has been no actual punishment won't lead to him being judged by history to be any better a person.
But the conviction itself seems an insufficient punishment for 34 felonies. How many other people would receive such leniency?
Click to expand...
It's a unique situation no matter how you look at it.
 
Sure, but that doesn't make the outcome just. Personally I think the judge is whipping out. From what I gather he is saying that the lack of actual punishment would be in keeping with Presidential immunity, yet he has already dismissed appeals to dismiss the case on those grounds. So which is it? Deferring any sentincing until after his term would have been more apt, I feel. Or a sentence that doesn't interfere with the execution of the office. But no actual punishment?? Nah. Where's the justice in that.
Ofc, this assumes that the judge will grant an unconditional discharge, as he has suggested he will/might.
 
Sarkus said:
Sure, but that doesn't make the outcome just. Personally I think the judge is whipping out. From what I gather he is saying that the lack of actual punishment would be in keeping with Presidential immunity, yet he has already dismissed appeals to dismiss the case on those grounds. So which is it? Deferring any sentincing until after his term would have been more apt, I feel. Or a sentence that doesn't interfere with the execution of the office. But no actual punishment?? Nah. Where's the justice in that.
Ofc, this assumes that the judge will grant an unconditional discharge, as he has suggested he will/might.
Click to expand...
He didn't say there will be no sentence. He said their will be no prison.
 
Seattle said:
He didn't say there will be no sentence. He said their will be no prison.
Click to expand...
www.bbc.co.uk

Trump to be sentenced in hush money case on 10 January

The US president-elect dismisses the case as "nothing but a rigged charade".
www.bbc.co.uk
"New York Justice Juan Merchan signalled he would not sentence Trump to jail time, probation or a fine, but instead give him an 'unconditional discharge'"
The BBC may be wrong in it's reporting, though, but it's usually good.
 
So an "unconditional discharge" it is, then. And Trump will take to the White House as the first President with a felony record.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top