Trump on Trial

[Ecthy]

Trump will be the next president, for better or worse. And if not, may god have mercy on us all.

[Serb]

The beacon of Freedom!

[Serb]

My ass!

[Uncle Sparky]

When you think about all of the illegality, civil lawsuits, convicted criminals in Trump’s inner circle, remember that the federal Department of Justice has a 101 page document listing everyone convicted of playing some role in the attempt to overturn the democratic election in 2016, which Trump organized and exhorted. The scale of illegality is staggering and nearly impossible for average folks to even remember.

dl (justice.gov)​

[Uncle Sparky]

It is sad that the incitement and treason trail for Trump that the above Americans were already tried for probably won't proceed. Sentencing options would include a perminent solution to Trump's antics.

[Uncle Sparky]

Sentencing day is 7/11. I wonder if 7/11 will have orange Slurpees on sale for 45 cents?
Also, I'm fairly sure most 7/11s wouldn't hire a known felon... yet he can become President.

'Merca!

[Geronimo]

Bill Clinton was already re-elected after very publicly committing perjury (a felony) several times to cover infidelity. We are supposed to be shocked and appalled that Trump could get re-elected to the same office after categorizing his perfectly legal hush money payments as "legal expenses" on his check stubs and expense ledgers despite the fact that this only becomes a felony when used to cover another crime? A crime which in this case was theorized to be Trump effectively making a campaign contribution with these "legal expenses" despite it being for precisely the same purpose as President Clinton's felonious multiple separate instances of perjury?

I'd be quite happy to have Trump jailed as a result of the ordinary judicial process. I'm appalled at the possibility that instead he was convicted through selective and modified use of the judicial process to achieve political ends in an unprecedented novel implementation of the judicial process.

[Uncle Sparky]

Bill Clinton never had his day in court. Neither did Hillary, yet someone kept chanting, "Lock her up!"
After 50 years of plea bargains and settling out of court, Trump went to court, pleaded innocent, and was found guilty by a judge and jury.
Almost every day of the proceedings, he purgered himself in a very public way.
Guilty.

[Geronimo]

Bill Clinton never had his day in court. Neither did Hillary, yet someone kept chanting, "Lock her up!"
After 50 years of plea bargains and settling out of court, Trump went to court, pleaded innocent, and was found guilty by a judge and jury.
Almost every day of the proceedings, he purgered himself in a very public way.
Guilty.
​

Trump took the stand and lied under oath? You equate entering a plea of "not guilty" to commiting perjury?

Selective prosecution for political reasons is far more alarming than falsifying personal records especially when such falsification would constitute chump change adjustments to the overall finances subject to the laws the defendant is accused of committing crimes to commit. Your observation that Clinton was never prosecuted for an even more felonious act to achieve the exact same objective (concealing an extra marital affair) does nothing to allay concerns about selective politically motivated targeted prosecution. It in fact only served to highlight it.

[BeBMan]

I liked this one from the Guardian

[Geronimo]

It certainly captures his inimical personality

[Geronimo]

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-conviction-manhattan-bragg-the-case-for-misgivings.html

Does anyone really disagree that this was the wrong case to prosecute Trump on?

[-Jrabbit]

You ask that as if we only have to pick just one. In fact, it's just the first criminal case that he couldn't delay with procedural maneuvering - mostly because it's not a federal case.

At the end of the day, a jury of peers New Yorkers who Trump's lawyers agreed to seat - unanimously agree that, by the letter of the law and the evidence provided, Donald Trump is guilty.

That changes nothing about the other criminal cases against him in Georgia and federal jurisdictions.

[Dauphin]

Trump took the stand and lied under oath? You equate entering a plea of "not guilty" to commiting perjury?

I presume he meant Trump lied publicly 100ft outside the court, because he would get short shrift saying the same lies inside of court. I expect you know that though.

Selective prosecution for political reasons is far more alarming than falsifying personal records especially when such falsification would constitute chump change adjustments to the overall finances subject to the laws the defendant is accused of committing crimes to commit. Your observation that Clinton was never prosecuted for an even more felonious act to achieve the exact same objective (concealing an extra marital affair) does nothing to allay concerns about selective politically motivated targeted prosecution. It in fact only served to highlight it.

So this I recognise as a potential problem. Selective application of laws is bad, and there are clear political overtones to the decision to prosecute. I don't take the call to action to be to not prosecute a particular person because others get off, but to prosecute all whenever you can so that justice is served.

The follow on point here is that getting a good chance of a successful prosecution relies on being able to prove your case. Most politicians know how to perform illegal actions in a way that are defensible or even 'legal' (shock) - for example corporate lobbying is in my mind basically a violation of bribery and corruption statutes, but my job is to combat financial crime so I may just see it everywhere. The problem with Donald is that he surrounded himself with criminal actors, or coerced people into criminal actions, and left an incontravertible trail of evidence of his crimes. To not prosecute in that situation would be perversion of the criminal justice system. Slick Willy and Hillary probably should have been put on criminal trial for their actions (on assumption the allegations are with merit), just like many many other politicians for potential offences, but I don't think the evidence trail is strong enough to get anywhere close to a conviction in most cases. That is what I lament about these cases - only the idiots get caught.

Final point, Bill Clinton from what I recall did suffer consequences for one of his perjures. He entered a plea deal which saw him lose his law license and pay fines, or something like that?

[Geronimo]

I presume he meant Trump lied publicly 100ft outside the court, because he would get short shrift saying the same lies inside of court. I expect you know that though.

Are you suggesting that it could be reasonable to equate public lies outside the courtroom to perjury? To me, history of US presidents almost seems to suggest that lying to the public is some sort of presidential job requirement.

So this I recognise as a potential problem. Selective application of laws is bad, and there are clear political overtones to the decision to prosecute. I don't take the call to action to be to not prosecute a particular person because others get off, but to prosecute all whenever you can so that justice is served.

The follow on point here is that getting a good chance of a successful prosecution relies on being able to prove your case. Most politicians know how to perform illegal actions in a way that are defensible or even 'legal' (shock) - for example corporate lobbying is in my mind basically a violation of bribery and corruption statutes, but my job is to combat financial crime so I may just see it everywhere. The problem with Donald is that he surrounded himself with criminal actors, or coerced people into criminal actions, and left an incontravertible trail of evidence of his crimes. To not prosecute in that situation would be perversion of the criminal justice system. Slick Willy and Hillary probably should have been put on criminal trial for their actions (on assumption the allegations are with merit), just like many many other politicians for potential offences, but I don't think the evidence trail is strong enough to get anywhere close to a conviction in most cases. That is what I lament about these cases - only the idiots get caught.

Final point, Bill Clinton from what I recall did suffer consequences for one of his perjures. He entered a plea deal which saw him lose his law license and pay fines, or something like that?

Basically, you seem to be saying that Trump got prosecuted because he sucked at covering his crimes. If this is the case, then I see even less cause for alarm at the prospect of Trump defeating Biden. A smart woman once told her daughter to marry someone who was a lousy liar. I suppose a smart voter should vote for a politician who is a lousy felon.

[Geronimo]

The argument that he was shielding his beloved family, not trying to win an election, is just laughable.

I'm no expert on the Trump family. What makes that argument laughable for Trump? Was Clinton trying to shield his beloved family when he perjured himself in the Paula Jones case or instead was he contesting the accusations in the case to protect his political career? Honestly, I don't really know for either president. However, if you find the argument laughable for Trump maybe you could educate me further on your insights in this regard as well as for Clinton in which similar arguments are considered to be conventional wisdom/

[-Jrabbit]

No expertise required: Trump's argument is laughable because literally everything is transactional with him and everyone around him.
The jury has spoken. I have no interest in your Whatabout Clinton sideshow.

[Dauphin]

Are you suggesting that it could be reasonable to equate public lies outside the courtroom to perjury? To me, history of US presidents almost seems to suggest that lying to the public is some sort of presidential job requirement.

I am not. I am just saying that is what I believe Sparky was implying.

Basically, you seem to be saying that Trump got prosecuted because he sucked at covering his crimes. If this is the case, then I see even less cause for alarm at the prospect of Trump defeating Biden. A smart woman once told her daughter to marry someone who was a lousy liar. I suppose a smart voter should vote for a politician who is a lousy felon.

I am not concerned with Trump winning in that I think he would be truly incompetent as the hardman dictator he wants to be. He's old, and will be a lame duck the moment he is in power. His lasting legacy is already in play with the Supreme Court. People fear what may happen to Ukraine, or abortion rights, or this or that. That's policy. The people decided. Vote again in 4 years.

My bigger 'concern' would be to keep an eye on who may come next.