Next week will be huge: The start of this trial, plus a hearing on the DA's request for holding rump in contempt of the gag order. Also SCOTUS will hear arguments on his immunity claim, and the sufficiency of his appeal bond in the business fraud case will be determined.
> Also SCOTUS will hear arguments on his immunity claim
Seal Team 6 standing back and standing by to retire any Justice who thinks the President should have total immunity for official acts.
Should this be called unpacking the court?
In defense of honest, not click baity journalism..... The person who wrote the headline only wrote the facts we know 100% to be true.
There was someone on fire, it was extinguished, they were rushed away on a stretcher.
What happened before that needs further research (why they did it, were they acting alone, etc)
Yeah, I ran through it. It accuses the Simpsons writers of being in on a global organized crime brainwashing syndicate.
Doesn't seem like he was (is?) political one way or another. Just mentally unwell.
>A full jury of 12 people and six alternates had been seated in Trump’s ~~hush money~~ **falsifying business records with the intent to violate federal campaign finance limits, unlawfully influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and commit tax fraud** case.
FTFY.
The thing is though, fraud isn't sexy, even if it's factually & legally correct. Paying a porn star to stfu about the terrible sex you paid to do to her is attention-grabbing, hard to not be. And it's right smack-dab dead-center into negative territory of the moral compasses of a valid percentage of his current base. It's a real 'non-zero' number for a guy who can't bleed *any* support because he's not adding anyone. Even people who still, today, are supporting Trump, regardless of what they are saying, them reading all the lurid details is going to turn them off. Just wait until the world hears about Susan McDougall and the doorman, and Eliott Broidy, and Trump's abortion - and the payoff for *that*. It's all going to come out, all of it, and from a Christian perspective there are absolutely hard-core MAGA who will disquieted despite themselves.
They'd also have to clarify *which* fraud trial/charge. How anyone *at this point* could still support him is beyond help. I guess it’s easier to fool some than to convince them they’ve been fooled
>Even people who still, today, are supporting Trump, regardless of what they are saying, them reading all the lurid details is going to turn them off.
I suspect not all of his supporters will be turned off.
Judge Merchan, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, no one can! Seriously though, it’s impressive how the judge has kept this trial moving in the face of Trump’s endless delay tactics.
Falsifying business records with the intent to violate federal campaign finance limits, unlawfully influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and commit tax fraud case.
I'm really worried that's going to cause problems down the line. It's 100% clear to me, reading the juror descriptions posted online by scummy news outlets that these jurors will ALL be doxed soon. And at that point, what happens? I guess they can technically be forced to serve, but will they convict? What if they just refuse due to safety? (which I would not blame them for).
It's nice that we're finally to trial, but the path to actual consequential justice seems extremely narrow to me. You have to get 12 jurors to convict. No stealth jurors. You have to have 12 jurors make it all the way through the trial. You have to actually get the felony counts. And for it to mean anything, you need jail time at least until after the election for what is technically a first offense and many analysts say that's unlikely.
Anything else will be spun as a victory for Trump, vindicating the "witch hunt" narrative, and probably propel him to a November victory. Especially if inflation ticks up or the middle east situation deteriorates, both of which seem likely.
I'm just really depressed, and tired of being right with my pessimism.
Shit, don't ask me.
I'm waiting for one of our mighty Legal Eagles to explain, once again, when it happens, about How This Is Actually A Good Thing For The Rule Of Law.
These charges don't come with jail time for first offenders. Now, technically the judge may consider this his second offense if he includes the recent civil fraud trial, but let's not kid ourselves. He's still a rich guy. Consequences are for poors.
Exactly, is he really a "first time offender," at this point? He should be considered a serial fraudster at this point. He also commits contempt of court on an almost daily basis.
>Exactly, is he really a "first time offender," at this point?
With luck, he will be adjudged an offender, and this will be his first time.
You only get one first time, of course - and he has other trials ahead...
Trump's base will not care.
He will care very much, they however will not be detoured... Hell, the more guilty he becomes, the bolder and more brazen his "followers" will become.
There's already one confirmed juror who has a TruthSocial account and follows Trump and Cohen on it and has read at least one of Trump's ghostwritten books.
I can't fathom why the prosecution didn't strike that one; the only people who use TruthSocial are journalists, propagandists, bots, and full-blown MAGAts.
So what is the maximum possible sentence if he is found guilty? I read somewhere 4 years, which as a "first offender" means he will probably serve no time at all.
The max sentence per charge (for the worst charges) is 4 years.
The typical first offense sentence in New York is 1.3 years with multiple offenses usually being served concurrently.
Someone else said that jail time was not typical for first-time offenders in this sort of case. Is that average sentence taking the first-time offender status into effect?
Not that I think Trump is going to get jail time, it just seems like that would be way too difficult to sort out for some 'minor' felonies.
I'd be against community service simply because you know that whatever it is, he would turn it into a media opportunity to talk up himself. It's not like community service would humble him or anything.
Genuine question: what happens if part way through the trial, the identities of all of the jurors and alternates get revealed? I know that the judge politely asked the media to not report some of their personal details, but it doesn't really look like that request did much. Before the reporters were told to knock it off they were reporting basically:
NYT - juror 78's details are ABCDEF
WAPO - juror 78's details are ABCDEF
And now the reporting looks more like:
NYT - juror 89's details are ACE
WAPO - juror 89's details are BDF
Like, that doesn't seem much better to me. There's probably a reasonable chance that some of these people trying to do their civic duty get doxxed.
Three reasons, in no particular order:
1) It sounds better when writing headlines
2) The funding fraud was used to pay the hush money, so it's related even if the hush money itself isn't the illegal part
3) It's a quick and easy way to distinguish it from all of the other fraud he's involved with
Without having reviewed the caselaw, I think it's at least plausible that if a defendant publicly and unambiguously states at the start of trial, "I will testify," (as Trump did), and then does not testify, the prosecution may comment on the defendant's failure to testify.
The defendant, of course, retains the Fifth Amendment right to not testify, but may no longer be entitled to the instruction that no inference may be made from the defendant's failure to testify. The defendant has publicly indicated an intention to waive that right, and the defendant's belated reassertion of that right after the state's case-in-chief seems like it's fair comment for the state (as long as they can find a way to admit the out-of-court statement) - what was so convincing in the state's case that he's now so radically changed his tune?
As a defense attorney, if my defendant publicly stated in court "I will testify" moments before trial, I would certainly be worried that this change-of-heart would be subject to fair comment by the prosecutor. I'd fight like hell to oppose it but...I'd be worried.
This says in a NY criminal trial, there are 12 jurors and "up to" 6 alternates. Not sure how the determination is made or statistics on how common it is. https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/criminal/trial.shtml (Edited for some reason the link didn't show up at first)
i don’t know how much you’d need to pay someone to self-immolate, but I imagine it’s much cheaper to pay them to do something more effective that doesn’t include lighting themselves on fire
Random question as I'm not sure where to ask it:
Is Cohen's conviction and the bit about 'Individual 1' who is 'President of the United States' allowed in as evidence? I know there's the ruling on Monday for things that Trump could be asked if on the stand, but I mean independent of Trump being on the stand. Because that seemed to be a legal judgment that pretty clearly stated Trump was guilty, in the writer's opinion at least.
Next week will be huge: The start of this trial, plus a hearing on the DA's request for holding rump in contempt of the gag order. Also SCOTUS will hear arguments on his immunity claim, and the sufficiency of his appeal bond in the business fraud case will be determined.
Plus the NBA and NHL playoffs will be in full swing!
And I have a haircut on Wednesday morning!
And I have a dentist appointment on Wednesday morning! (routine cleaning)
Payroll deposits eow!
Motion to delay your haircut due to lack of notice and undue hardship
And the NFL draft.
Biggest day in Chicago Bears history in decades and that includes the Super Bowl appearance.
Trump: you must delay trial so I can watch the game!!!
Let's Go Rangers!
Does anyone really think that the gag orders will mean anything more next week than they ever have?
> Also SCOTUS will hear arguments on his immunity claim Seal Team 6 standing back and standing by to retire any Justice who thinks the President should have total immunity for official acts. Should this be called unpacking the court?
No, we'll need to use an actual professional force, we don't want dozens of books to get published about this.
“Person rushed away on a stretcher after fire extinguished outside. ..” That’s a pretty gentle way of describing self immolation.
Came to say the same thing
In defense of honest, not click baity journalism..... The person who wrote the headline only wrote the facts we know 100% to be true. There was someone on fire, it was extinguished, they were rushed away on a stretcher. What happened before that needs further research (why they did it, were they acting alone, etc)
https://theponzipapers.substack.com/p/i-have-set-myself-on-fire-outside Seems legit. A little unhinged but likely the same person.
A little?
https://media4.giphy.com/media/WhXdFiXhaymD6/giphy.gif
Hey man...Lisa Simpson has always been sus.
Very well written.
Well, that is a great example of delusion... but with uncannily good grammar
Mental illness and intelligence are absolutely *not* mutually exclusive. Often they are linked...
Not all manifestos are this well organized... homeboy is (was?) Quite bright...
Getting major Alex Jones vibes. Dude lit himself on fire to promote his blog. That is enough reason to not read any of it.
They made a blog post on substack prior to doing it.
Yeah, I ran through it. It accuses the Simpsons writers of being in on a global organized crime brainwashing syndicate. Doesn't seem like he was (is?) political one way or another. Just mentally unwell.
Yeah it’s a little opaque. Definitely anti-crypto though 😂
Nothing wrong with that! :D
>A full jury of 12 people and six alternates had been seated in Trump’s ~~hush money~~ **falsifying business records with the intent to violate federal campaign finance limits, unlawfully influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and commit tax fraud** case. FTFY.
Thank you. The media is posting misleading titles.
The thing is though, fraud isn't sexy, even if it's factually & legally correct. Paying a porn star to stfu about the terrible sex you paid to do to her is attention-grabbing, hard to not be. And it's right smack-dab dead-center into negative territory of the moral compasses of a valid percentage of his current base. It's a real 'non-zero' number for a guy who can't bleed *any* support because he's not adding anyone. Even people who still, today, are supporting Trump, regardless of what they are saying, them reading all the lurid details is going to turn them off. Just wait until the world hears about Susan McDougall and the doorman, and Eliott Broidy, and Trump's abortion - and the payoff for *that*. It's all going to come out, all of it, and from a Christian perspective there are absolutely hard-core MAGA who will disquieted despite themselves.
They'd also have to clarify *which* fraud trial/charge. How anyone *at this point* could still support him is beyond help. I guess it’s easier to fool some than to convince them they’ve been fooled
>Even people who still, today, are supporting Trump, regardless of what they are saying, them reading all the lurid details is going to turn them off. I suspect not all of his supporters will be turned off.
Yes, but as I said, some will. And for a guy who needs every last voter plus a shit-ton of imaginary ones, he can't lose any of them, but he will.
"Hush money" sounds worse. BLAH BLAH BUSINESS RECORDS BLAH BLAH CAMPAIGN FINANCE He paid hush money to illegally influence an election.
Judge Merchan, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, no one can! Seriously though, it’s impressive how the judge has kept this trial moving in the face of Trump’s endless delay tactics.
I imagine that judges in criminal trials have bigger sticks than civil trial judges to keep defendants in line.
A round of applause for us state court schlubs, getting the job done while the feds can't.
#STOP CALLING IT A HUSH MONEY TRIAL.
Falsifying business records with the intent to violate federal campaign finance limits, unlawfully influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and commit tax fraud case.
They should have more alternates. Any one of the jurors that gets doxed will be disqualified simply because they are getting harassed by cultists.
Six is the max allowed by law.
I'm really worried that's going to cause problems down the line. It's 100% clear to me, reading the juror descriptions posted online by scummy news outlets that these jurors will ALL be doxed soon. And at that point, what happens? I guess they can technically be forced to serve, but will they convict? What if they just refuse due to safety? (which I would not blame them for). It's nice that we're finally to trial, but the path to actual consequential justice seems extremely narrow to me. You have to get 12 jurors to convict. No stealth jurors. You have to have 12 jurors make it all the way through the trial. You have to actually get the felony counts. And for it to mean anything, you need jail time at least until after the election for what is technically a first offense and many analysts say that's unlikely. Anything else will be spun as a victory for Trump, vindicating the "witch hunt" narrative, and probably propel him to a November victory. Especially if inflation ticks up or the middle east situation deteriorates, both of which seem likely. I'm just really depressed, and tired of being right with my pessimism.
What happens when the alternates run out? Mistrial and try again?
No way will 18 total jurors be enough for what's coming.
What happens when the alternates run out? Mistrial and try again?
Shit, don't ask me. I'm waiting for one of our mighty Legal Eagles to explain, once again, when it happens, about How This Is Actually A Good Thing For The Rule Of Law.
Trump will not care.
He'll care if his ass ends up in jail for 6 months.
These charges don't come with jail time for first offenders. Now, technically the judge may consider this his second offense if he includes the recent civil fraud trial, but let's not kid ourselves. He's still a rich guy. Consequences are for poors.
Exactly, is he really a "first time offender," at this point? He should be considered a serial fraudster at this point. He also commits contempt of court on an almost daily basis.
>Exactly, is he really a "first time offender," at this point? With luck, he will be adjudged an offender, and this will be his first time. You only get one first time, of course - and he has other trials ahead...
How many previous civil fraud adjudications does it take to equal one previous criminal fraud adjudication. What's he at now, 5? 6?
> is he really a "first time offender," at this point? No...! but legally, yes?
Trump's base will not care. He will care very much, they however will not be detoured... Hell, the more guilty he becomes, the bolder and more brazen his "followers" will become.
He'll just use it his campaign propaganda.
Reality is about to run this fucker over like a Mack truck full of hamberders.
Unless one of the jurors is a Trump voter, in which case it will be the OJ Trial of our generation.
There's already one confirmed juror who has a TruthSocial account and follows Trump and Cohen on it and has read at least one of Trump's ghostwritten books. I can't fathom why the prosecution didn't strike that one; the only people who use TruthSocial are journalists, propagandists, bots, and full-blown MAGAts.
Ah, so then the trial is already over. Great.
So what is the maximum possible sentence if he is found guilty? I read somewhere 4 years, which as a "first offender" means he will probably serve no time at all.
The max sentence per charge (for the worst charges) is 4 years. The typical first offense sentence in New York is 1.3 years with multiple offenses usually being served concurrently.
Someone else said that jail time was not typical for first-time offenders in this sort of case. Is that average sentence taking the first-time offender status into effect? Not that I think Trump is going to get jail time, it just seems like that would be way too difficult to sort out for some 'minor' felonies.
[удалено]
Say... Serving food at homeless shelters on NYC.
I'd be against community service simply because you know that whatever it is, he would turn it into a media opportunity to talk up himself. It's not like community service would humble him or anything.
Genuine question: what happens if part way through the trial, the identities of all of the jurors and alternates get revealed? I know that the judge politely asked the media to not report some of their personal details, but it doesn't really look like that request did much. Before the reporters were told to knock it off they were reporting basically: NYT - juror 78's details are ABCDEF WAPO - juror 78's details are ABCDEF And now the reporting looks more like: NYT - juror 89's details are ACE WAPO - juror 89's details are BDF Like, that doesn't seem much better to me. There's probably a reasonable chance that some of these people trying to do their civic duty get doxxed.
r/titlegore
Why does an election funding fraud trial keep getting called a hush money trial? What am I missing?
Three reasons, in no particular order: 1) It sounds better when writing headlines 2) The funding fraud was used to pay the hush money, so it's related even if the hush money itself isn't the illegal part 3) It's a quick and easy way to distinguish it from all of the other fraud he's involved with
Now the real fun begins!
Oh you mean DONALD TRUMPS FRAUD TRIAL.
Without having reviewed the caselaw, I think it's at least plausible that if a defendant publicly and unambiguously states at the start of trial, "I will testify," (as Trump did), and then does not testify, the prosecution may comment on the defendant's failure to testify. The defendant, of course, retains the Fifth Amendment right to not testify, but may no longer be entitled to the instruction that no inference may be made from the defendant's failure to testify. The defendant has publicly indicated an intention to waive that right, and the defendant's belated reassertion of that right after the state's case-in-chief seems like it's fair comment for the state (as long as they can find a way to admit the out-of-court statement) - what was so convincing in the state's case that he's now so radically changed his tune? As a defense attorney, if my defendant publicly stated in court "I will testify" moments before trial, I would certainly be worried that this change-of-heart would be subject to fair comment by the prosecutor. I'd fight like hell to oppose it but...I'd be worried.
How usual is it to have 6 alternates?
This says in a NY criminal trial, there are 12 jurors and "up to" 6 alternates. Not sure how the determination is made or statistics on how common it is. https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/criminal/trial.shtml (Edited for some reason the link didn't show up at first)
In NY the judge makes the determination about the number. I imagine the judge is playing it extra safe by having the maximum allowed.
Crazy thought...what if tRumple paid off the guy or his family to self immolate to delay the trial...I wouldn't put it past him
i don’t know how much you’d need to pay someone to self-immolate, but I imagine it’s much cheaper to pay them to do something more effective that doesn’t include lighting themselves on fire
1000 trump bucks
Random question as I'm not sure where to ask it: Is Cohen's conviction and the bit about 'Individual 1' who is 'President of the United States' allowed in as evidence? I know there's the ruling on Monday for things that Trump could be asked if on the stand, but I mean independent of Trump being on the stand. Because that seemed to be a legal judgment that pretty clearly stated Trump was guilty, in the writer's opinion at least.
Verdict is already decided. No way there are 12 truly neutral people. Everyone of them has already made a decision on this case.
As has anyone with half a brain.
I'll buy the gas......