OMG, I viewed it. I'll never hold down breakfast in the morning...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump Found Guilty
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, he can still run. He could be in prison and still run. Here is a man who did towards the end of the last century:
Lyndon LaRouche - Wikipedia
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
Guess he figures he'll need more than $130,000 for 2024. I'm waiting for Melania to hit him up!!!
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I could see him being sentenced with no jail for the verdict, but getting a few days for his contempt of court even after the last warning. And that would not be open to appeal. It would be straight to jail.
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
That would be good, even if 1 day per violation. That's more than fair and a great way to continue the message of "no one is above the law." He may just drop out of the election if he sees he can, and will be held responsible for his actions. At least if he gets in, maybe he'd see it wouldn't be smart to be as dangerous as I fear he would like to be. I still think he'd put a price tag on this country without blinking an eye if he had a clear out.
It's the only punishment that would really
have any undesirable consequences for him.
A fine would be de minimis for a wealthy guy.
And his acolytes would pay it for him anyway.
House arrest wouldn't interfere materially with
his campaigning.....might even help him keep
up the martyr pretense.
But prison....that would limit his communication.
He'd suffer.
The courts might delay serving his sentences until after the election. If he wins, well that will be when he gets out of office, as if he would ever leave.
But now I wonder if he will even dare do the debates, because he will have to answer questions about the conviction. He's a defeated man and I doubt he has the guts to face anyone face to face. When he gave his comments after the verdict he looked and sounded exhausted and defeated. I think this verdict hit him hard.
He will need an emotional support rally soon.
Now Trump can compare himself to Jesus even more! He may even get more votes!16 guilty counts so far.
Live updates: Donald Trump found guilty in hush money trial
A Manhattan jury found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records he faced in his New York hush money criminal trial. Follow here for the latest live news updates, analysis and more.www.cnn.com
Not that I'm holding out much hope as to how this will affect his chances.
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
Hehe.
Tomef
Well-Known Member
I’ve tried to find a reasonable article in defence of Trump, but haven’t been able to locate one that doesn’t simply assume anyone involved is ‘obviously’ politically motivated, and they all compare this fairly mundane legal proceeding to a Soviet-style show trial. This seems to be a pretty bizarre idea; Trump had a defence team, highly paid, and a standard trial no different from any other. Where is the comparison, I wonder? A show trial under Stalin was just that, a show - no actual case, no defence, just railroading someone to a preordained guilty verdict based on confessions of political ‘wrongness’ under extreme duress (torture). Trump actually did what he was accused of, was found guilty after an actual trial by jury.16 guilty counts so far.
Live updates: Donald Trump found guilty in hush money trial
A Manhattan jury found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records he faced in his New York hush money criminal trial. Follow here for the latest live news updates, analysis and more.
This is the most reasonable article I could find, but it has to be asked why the writer makes this comparison, and why he thinks he somehow can just ‘obviously’ see into the deeper motives of the people involved? Although Unherd is a serious news site, not like the usual crap from the US conservative media, you have to question the journalistic objectivity of someone who sees comparisons with Soviet Russia here, or who makes random assumptions of people’s motives - based on what?
esmith
Veteran Member
Just one little question.
I read that some say this indicates that no President is above the law.
Does the mean that any President can be prosecuted for violating the law?
If so this means that the current President must stand trial for mishandling classified information, correct?
I read that some say this indicates that no President is above the law.
Does the mean that any President can be prosecuted for violating the law?
If so this means that the current President must stand trial for mishandling classified information, correct?
No. The Justice Department investigated, and decided there was insufficient cause to indict.
Doesn't that describe the author of your link as well? Here's how his article begins. He assumes that the prosecutionwas vindictive and the jury biased:
"Whatever you think of Donald Trump — and I for one think very little of him — his conviction as a felon for what would ordinarily be a minor misdemeanour by a biased jury is a grim day for democracy in America. Yesterday’s decision, the culmination of a vindictive prosecution, was less dramatic than the ransacking of the US Capitol by a pro-Trump mob after the 2020 election — but the long-term ramifications are likely to be far more serious."
And the argument for partisanship: Letitia James ran on a platform of investigating Trump and Engoron was a Democrat, too:
"In both of these cases, the partisan motives of the Democratic prosecutors and judges were evident. Campaigning as a Democrat for the office of Attorney General in New York State in 2018, Letitia James promised that she would selectively prosecute Trump, and find some excuse, any excuse, to do so: “I will never be afraid to challenge this illegitimate president,” she said. “I will be shining a bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings and every dealing.” The civil fraud case that James brought against Trump was presided over by Judge Arthur Engoron, an elected judge and a Democrat who was elected to the First Judicial District of New York in 2015 without any Republican opponent, so rare are Republicans in New York."
Here the argument for partisanship is based in the fact that not everyone, Bragg included originally, wanted to prosecute the hush money case:
"The partisanship of the Democratic officials in the hush-money case has been just as blatant. Charges like those brought against Trump were rejected as too weak by Cyrus Vance, the previous Manhattan district Attorney, and they were also rejected as too flimsy by Vance’s successor, Manhattan’s current DA, Alvin Bragg. Bragg only changed his mind and brought charges against Trump after two things happened. The first was the publication of a book — People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account — by Mark Pomerantz, a member of Bragg’s team who resigned in protest in 2022, claiming that Bragg was not doing enough to prosecute Trump. The second was the fact that, by 2023, it was becoming clear that Trump would be the Republican nominee for the presidency."
Both of those paragraphs above ignore the fact that grand juries and trial juries agreed with the prosecutors. Whatever else the prosecutors thought about Trump, their motives for bringing the case must have included thinking that they had cases they could win.
Apparently, prosecuting Trump but not Biden for possessing classified documents was also evidence of partisanship:
"Like Trump, Joe Biden kept boxes of classified documents in his home following his stint as Barack Obama’s vice-president. And like Trump, Biden was investigated by a special counsel appointed by Merrick Garland, Robert Hur. But Hur refused to press charges under the Espionage Act against Biden on the grounds that he is “an elderly man with a poor memory.”
For those aware of the differences between the cases and the actual reason for not prosecuting Biden, the above is about as dishonest as the preceding paragraphs.
And no argument was made to defend the charge that the juries were biased.
This is what conservative apologetics looks like - lies.
Hopefully.
No. He was investigated and there was insufficient evidence of a crime to take it to a grand jury.
JIMMY12345
Active Member
The narrow majority in-between will be persuaded by social media and artificial intelligence to vote DONALD TRUMP 2024.The Ms Stormy Daniels affair is exactly that.A stormy affair in a tea cup.16 guilty counts so far.
Live updates: Donald Trump found guilty in hush money trial
A Manhattan jury found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records he faced in his New York hush money criminal trial. Follow here for the latest live news updates, analysis and more.
Mr/Mrs Clinton of Democratic fame is hardly going to point accusing fingers.The Republican party was in the past heavily influenced by James Buchanan,The Cato and Heritage Institute.This on a reasonable/ unreasonable (?) premise people who amassed fortunes should not have to pay for Government services.Much easier to keep it for themselves and not fritter(? )it on Medicare, Medicaid etc and public schools for the lesser folk.Now the Republican party is the Trump party.
Trump is the money man with powerful backers.They will not let him lose if at all possible.Especially if he proclaims what a great job Russia did invading Ukraine.Amen to NATO (and Ukraine).
Betcha he wins - even if you do not like it.
Actually, Trump's trial was a bit different from any other, and decidedly in his favour. Ten violations of court orders, without the judge imposing even a minute of jail time, which any other defendant would get without question. Trump was treated more than fairly by this judge.
But you are correct, Trump was found guilty by a jury of ordinary Americans (in that sense his peers), and that is the gold standard in the US for being a convicted felon.
I don't know who Michael Lind is, but I think he makes one assumption that is difficult for me to swallow, and that Trump was convicted by "a biased jury." His lawyers played their full part in jury selection, and even in New York, it would be very hard to weed out every Republican in pectore (in his heart, meaning unregistered). And to convict for a felony requires unanimous agreement by all 12 jurors. And those 12 jurors were unanimous over 34 counts after only 9 hours or so of deliberation. They were charged by the judge as to what the law is, and they concluded that the evidence they had been presented with demonstrated that Trump broke the law.This is the most reasonable article I could find, but it has to be asked why the writer makes this comparison, and why he thinks he somehow can just ‘obviously’ see into the deeper motives of the people involved? Although Unherd is a serious news site, not like the usual crap from the US conservative media, you have to question the journalistic objectivity of someone who sees comparisons with Soviet Russia here, or who makes random assumptions of people’s motives - based on what?
Last edited: