Trump Found Guilty on All 34 Counts In Hush-Money Trial

[essentialsaltes]

The majority of American voters in the majority of the states in the USA disagree with your post.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Some may simply not care that he assaulted a woman and fudged documents to hide his infidelities.

 

[ozso]

That doesn't necessarily follow. Some may simply not care that he assaulted a woman and fudged documents to hide his infidelities.

Yeah I've heard that Trump voters are garbage.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yeah I've heard that Trump voters are garbage.

Some of them are indeed deplorable.

 

[ozso]

Some of them are indeed deplorable.

Along with fascist and racist and this-that-and-the-other phobic etc etc. Oh and weird. All that almost persuaded me to become a democrat

 

[Pommer]

Now just waiting for the SCOTUS to dismiss the whole absurd case.

Why would the Supreme Court get involved in a State court case that hasn’t been appealed (yet)?

 

[ozso]

Why would the Supreme Court get involved in a State court case that hasn’t been appealed (yet)?

While I don't know the details, I know it's been talked about in the news.

 

[NxNW]

This was not the rule of law.

Trump was found guilty by an impartial jury agreed-upon and approved by his attorneys. No bias or jury tampering has been found or alleged. Do you have any evidence to the contrary, other than complaining about the zip code?

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, they concluded lawfare was at play to influence them to vote for Biden/Harris.

Just because you don't like the truth isn't going to change it.

Donald Trump is a rapist. A felon. And a traitor.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[NxNW]

That doesn't necessarily follow. Some may simply not care that he assaulted a woman and fudged documents to hide his infidelities.

Exactly. He was elected because 150,000 voters in the swing states decided that Trump's false promise to reverse inflation was more important than his criminal acts. He's already losing support over his admission that it was a lie.

 

[Pommer]

While I don't know the details, I know it's been talked about in the news.

SCOTUS defers to (the several) State’s own Laws, (and then only after the plaintiff’s case has been adjudicated against them in the highest state court), and only takes cases where there is a Constitutional issue in play.

 

[ozso]

Just because you don't like the truth isn't going to change it.

Donald Trump is a rapist. A felon. And a traitor.

-CryptoLutheran

We're talking about why 77,303,573 people voted for Trump despite the accusations against him. My conclusion is they simply didn't believe the accusations were legitimate.

 

[ozso]

SCOTUS defers to (the several) State’s own Laws, (and then only after the plaintiff’s case has been adjudicated against them in the highest state court), and only takes cases where there is a Constitutional issue in play.

Such as voter manipulation via lawfare?

 

[FenderTL5]

Such as voter manipulation via lawfare?

That would be an interesting twist.
He was elected.
Making the case that he was elected because voters were manipulated into voting for him because he's been convicted of fraud trying to conceal his immorality, that would seem an odd argument to make.

I tend to think it's more likely that fraud and immorality just didn't matter to those voters, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[ralliann]

This was not the rule of law. What happened here is the result of the weaponization of lawfare in the progressive left wing liberal city of New York City.

YEP. And those who want to rid this nation of Capitalism attribute it to money. The wealthy, lawyers etc. Daniel Penny exposes that for what it is. No wealth, just heroism, tried for murder.

Thankfully, I lift up Hallelujahs to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that the majority of the states in America and the majority of American voters rejected the lawfare of the progressive liberals in the Democratic Party.
On the other hand, New York is demonstrating that their political positions are out of step with the majority of states in the USA.

Yep, thank God they did, and do see it.

 

[ozso]

That would be an interesting twist.
He was elected.
Making the case that he was elected because voters were manipulated into voting for him because he's been convicted of fraud trying to conceal his immorality, that would seem an odd argument to make.

No, it would mean enough people saw it as political lawfare attempting to dissuade them from voting for Trump. What you're talking about is a backfire.

I tend to think it's more likely that fraud and immorality just didn't matter to those voters, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Likely due to the vilification narrative of the left.

 

[JSRG]

Why would they? It's not a matter of federal law so SCOTUS really has no reason to get involved.

Well, federal law is to some extent inherently implicated in this.

The legal theory of the case here is a bit complicated. In New York, it's a misdemeanor to falsify business records with intent to defraud. However, even if Trump violated this law, it's past the statute of limitations, so you can't charge him for it. But it becomes a felony with a longer statute of limitations if it was done to conceal another crime. So they claim that the other crime being concealed was a violation of another law in New York prohibiting conspiring "to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means." But what was the unlawful means? Alleged violation of a federal law (one about campaign finance).

This is where we run into some questions. Can violation of a federal law count as "unlawful means" for the purpose of this New York law? And even if it can, can they do this when there has been no conviction on the federal level of it? Since it's not a federal jury, it's basically asking the jury to convict Trump of a law they can't actually convict him of.

There's also some questions about whether several things in the trial may have run afoul of the US Constitution, like allegations of selective prosecution (though this is extremely difficult to prove) or the unusual way the charges were done arguably not requiring the jury to reach a legitimately unanimous verdict. I remember someone on these forums posted a video by a lawyer discussing some of these things, but I unfortunately can't remember where or who it was.

But it all has to go to the State Supreme Court first.

 

[JSRG]

What's absurd an immoral is lawfare that fizzles out after it's of no use any longer. The minute Trump was reelected it wasn't worth pursuing. Same goes with Jack Smith and all the rest.

I'm not sure exactly how this one "fizzled out"--maybe it's the fact the judge clearly has no plan to sentence Trump to prison time? I wouldn't count that as fizzling out.

As for Jack Smith, the Department of Justice has a policy of not going after sitting Presidents, and interpreting that to include president-elects is reasonable. And from a practical point of view, there's not much point trying to go after someone who can just fire anyone who tries to bring charges against them. In that sense his re-election made the cases "of no use any longer" but that would be true regardless of whether it was lawfare or not. It's really hard to charge the guy who has the ability to fire anyone who brings a charge against him.

The other one was the Georgia case (the one with Fani Willis), which due to being a matter of state law doesn't have the problem that the Department of Justice does. It does not seem like the election has in any way caused this one to "fizzle out" yet--though there's been enough of a comedy of errors regarding the prosecution that even before the election it looked like it might end up failing on its own. Regardless, I don't think there's evidence that the election result has caused it to fizzle out any more or less than it was previously.

 

[JSRG]

Again, you are spot-on correct. Once the Supreme Court ruled that presidents are above the law and no longer accountable - the whole sordid thing became moot.

The Supreme Court never ruled such a thing. Yes, there was the presidential immunity decision (which I disagreed with, for the record), but even that did not rule that "presidents are above the law and no longer accountable" unless you add the phrase "in some specific and limited instances" to it, which changes the meaning considerably.

 

[ozso]

I'm not sure exactly how this one "fizzled out"--maybe it's the fact the judge clearly has no plan to sentence Trump to prison time? I wouldn't count that as fizzling out.

As for Jack Smith, the Department of Justice has a policy of not going after sitting Presidents, and interpreting that to include president-elects is reasonable. And from a practical point of view, there's not much point trying to go after someone who can just fire anyone who tries to bring charges against them. In that sense his re-election made the cases "of no use any longer" but that would be true regardless of whether it was lawfare or not. It's really hard to charge the guy who has the ability to fire anyone who brings a charge against him.

The other one was the Georgia case (the one with Fani Willis), which due to being a matter of state law doesn't have the problem that the Department of Justice does. It does not seem like the election has in any way caused this one to "fizzle out" yet--though there's been enough of a comedy of errors regarding the prosecution that even before the election it looked like it might end up failing on its own. Regardless, I don't think there's evidence that the election result has caused it to fizzle out any more or less than it was previously.

Whatever term you prefer and approve of, only one case ended up with a conviction which will finalize in an anticlimactic unconditional discharge. For years I've been hearing about how badly Trump was going to be punished, how he's going to end up in jail, how big bad Jack Smith was going to put him away, over and over again. It has all ended not with a bang, but with a whimper. These prosecutors have had years to put Trump away and nada. Which is supposedly all Trump's fault, rather than a lacking on their part. Most of these cases were simply left hanging out there, not getting anywhere, up to the election, and then the prosecutors dropped their cases. Tons of hype with lots and lots of build up, to a bland mediocre ending on their part and Trump hip deep in victory.

 

[Always in His Presence]

This is probably good news for Trump - why - because now the appeal process can begin.