Trump Now Banned by Law From Entering 37 Countries

[Jayhawker Soule]

But who cares about my feelings.

I cannot help but find it curiously awkward when Trump apologists appeal for empathy, a quality conspicuously lacking in our narcissistic ex-president.

 

[Debater Slayer]

So if he can't travel to different countries he c ant do his job as president right presidents have to travel?

Travel ban or not, has he ever really been able to do his job as president?

(More seriously, I think that's a good question. I'll have to look up the ramifications of this limitation as well as whether it would hold for a POTUS.)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I doubt it.
If he had paid a male prostitute, nobody would have cared.

Something like this?

<ignore>

disgusting​

</ignore>

 

[blü 2]

Nearly 40 nations - including Canada and the UK - have strict policies when it comes to allowing individuals with criminal records across their borders, and barring a special accommodation, Trump would be held to those same standards. It’s unclear if he would be allowed to visit if he wins the presidental election in November, but remains a felon.

Full list of countries that restrict visits from felons​

1. Argentina
2. Australia
3. Brazil
4. Cambodia
5. Canada
6. Chile
7. China
8. Cuba
9. Dominican Republic
10. Egypt
11. Ethiopia
12. Hong Kong
13. India
14. Indonesia
15. Iran
16. Ireland
17. Israel
18. Japan
19. Kenya
20. Malaysia
21. Macau
22. Mexico
23. Morocco
24. Nepal
25. New Zealand
26. Peru
27. Philippines
28. Singapore
29. South Africa
30. South Korea
31. Taiwan
32. Tanzania
33. Tunisia
34. Turkey
35. Ukraine
36. United Arab Emirates
37. United Kingdom

Donald Trump now banned from countries including Canada and UK as convicted felon

There are nearly 40 countries that bar felons from entering, even to visit.

www.independent.co.uk

Thanks for that list. At least he wouldn't have trouble going to see his old buddies in Russia and North Korea.

And about the first thing he'd do if re-elected is pardon himself. That would require another SCOTUS hearing, and the world would really be standing on its head if SCOTUS ruled he could do that ─ but the question is presently untested.

Still, in fact I'd be very surprised if Canada, the UK, and many more excluded the POTUS, convicted or not, even in the very sad event of that officer being Trump.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think that all these trials will make voters convinced that Trump is a victim persecuted by the judiciary.

They've already done surveys. From source: "one new poll this weekend says that a slight majority of Americans agree with Trump’s conviction. Another new poll says that half of Americans think Trump should drop out of the race, including 14% of registered Republicans." Elsewhere, I saw a breakdown, and it's by party lines you'd expect. There are other polls asking if the trial was fair or not and if the verdict was fair or not. This one comes from @McBell : Half of Americans think Trump's guilty verdict was correct, should end campaign: POLL

I wish you people on this board would keep in mind that some of your fellow posters have records, in your rush to dunk on Trump being a felon.

It's unrealistic of you to expect people to not be celebrating this.

Your comment reminds me of a recent RF thread in which a poster was complaining about the use of the phrase 'drank the Kool-Aid' because a friend of a friend knew somebody who had died at Jonestown. I told him the same thing - digging in and choosing to be offended just guarantees several more unpleasant experiences for him, as he is sure to see the phrase again and again.

It's making me not want to log in again. But who cares about my feelings.

You do. You're responsible for your feelings. You'll have to choose how to receive such comments. Take them for what they are. They're an expression that being a felon comes with the price of social stigma, which does apply to all felons, but in this case, they're an expression of contempt and schadenfreude directed at a single person and it's not you.

Imagine what people named Karen are going through.

 

[Estro Felino]

They've already done surveys. From source: "one new poll this weekend says that a slight majority of Americans agree with Trump’s conviction. Another new poll says that half of Americans think Trump should drop out of the race, including 14% of registered Republicans." Elsewhere, I saw a breakdown, and it's by party lines you'd expect. There are other polls asking if the trial was fair or not and if the verdict was fair or not. This one comes from @McBell : Half of Americans think Trump's guilty verdict was correct, should end campaign: POLL

In my country a male politician usually pays a beautiful escort so she discloses to the audience that she had sex with him...even if it's not true (because he's gay...or something like that)...

so my mind is not able to understand and to accept that Trump had to pay this woman so she won't tell anyone...

I am mystified.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Jokes aside, I think that all these trials will make voters convinced that Trump is a victim persecuted by the judiciary.

After all...the Pope said there is too much gayness so a heterosexual male like Trump who appreciates female beauty can be so reassuring.

The Pope was referring to gayness within the seminary and clergy. I strongly doubt Trump would be particularly welcome in either.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It's not about the sex; it's about the checks.

INTENT TO COMMIT OR CONCEAL ANOTHER CRIME​

For the crime of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, the intent to defraud must include an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Under our law, although the People must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed.​

​

NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152 PREDICATE​

​

The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152. Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct. Knowledge of a conspiracy does not by itself make the defendant a coconspirator. The defendant must intend that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means. Intent means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with the intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means when his or her conscious objective or purpose is that such conduct be performed. Evidence that defendant was present when others agreed to engage in the performance of a crime does not by itself show that he personally agreed to engage in the conspiracy.​

​

“By Unlawful Means” Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.​

​

THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT​

​

The first of the People’s theories of “unlawful means” which I will now define for you is the Federal Election Campaign Act. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, it is unlawful for an individual to willfully make a contribution to any candidate with respect to any election for federal office, including the office of President of the United States, which exceeds a certain limit. In 2015 and 2016, that limit was $2,700. It is also unlawful under the Federal Election Campaign Act for any corporation to willfully make a contribution of any amount to a candidate or candidate’s campaign in connection with any federal election, or for any person to cause such a corporate contribution. For purposes of these prohibitions, an expenditure made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate or his agents shall be considered to be a contribution to such candidate.​

​

The terms CONTRIBUTION and EXPENDITURE include anything of value, including any purchase, payment, loan, or advance, made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office. Under federal law, a third party’s payment of a candidate’s expenses is deemed to be a contribution to the candidate unless the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy. If the payment would have been made even in the absence of the candidacy, the payment should not be treated as a contribution. FECA’s definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure” do not include any cost incurred in covering or carrying a news story, commentary, or editorial by a magazine, periodical publication, or similar press entity, so long as such activity is a normal, legitimate press function. This is called the press exemption. For example, the term legitimate press function includes solicitation letters seeking new subscribers to a publication.​

​

FALSIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS RECORDS​

​

The second of the People’s theories of “unlawful means” which I will define for you now is the falsification of other business records. Under New York law, a person is guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree when with intent to defraud, he or she makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise. I previously defined for you the terms enterprise, business records, and intent to defraud. For purposes of determining whether Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree was an unlawful means used by a conspiracy to promote or prevent an election here, you may consider: (i) the bank records associated with Michael Cohen’s account formation paperwork for Resolution Consultants LLC and Essential Consultants LLC accounts; (ii) the bank records associated with Michael Cohen’s wire to Keith Davidson; (iii) the invoice from Investor Advisory Services Inc. to Resolution Consultants LLC; and (iv) the 1099-MISC forms that the Trump Organization issued to Michael Cohen.​

​

VIOLATION OF TAX LAWS​

​

The People’s third theory of “unlawful means” which I will define for you now is a Violation of Tax Laws. Under New York State and New York City law, it is unlawful to knowingly supply or submit materially false or fraudulent information in connection with any tax return. Likewise, under federal law, it is unlawful for a person to willfully make any tax return, statement, or other document that is fraudulent or false as to any material matter, or that the person does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter. Under these federal, state, and local laws, such conduct is unlawful even if it does not result in underpayment of taxes.​

Again, what crime (theory) did he commit? The Jury never said what they convicted him of. You have a citizen convicted of a felony that does not know what they were convicted of and the democrats are totally fine with that from the president on down. That should get it overturned alone.

One reason Trump has raised $200M since the conviction, $70M in small donations. Merchan will sentence him to prison and that will solidify his election in my opinion. People have had enough of the authoritarianism and election interference by the dems. Does anyone really think Biden would have been prosecuted by Bragg if Bragg had the same evidence against Biden? We all know he wouldn't.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This hurts to see that I may never be able to visit countries I've long wanted to see or even move to, even to visit friends, because of a mistake I made.

I wish you people on this board would keep in mind that some of your fellow posters have records, in your rush to dunk on Trump being a felon. It's making me not want to log in again. But who cares about my feelings.

None of the comments refer to you in any way, or even contemplate you or your past.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Thanks for that list. At least he wouldn't have trouble going to see his old buddies in Russia and North Korea.

And about the first thing he'd do if re-elected is pardon himself. That would require another SCOTUS hearing, and the world would really be standing on its head if SCOTUS ruled he could do that ─ but the question is presently untested.

Still, in fact I'd be very surprised if Canada, the UK, and many more excluded the POTUS, convicted or not, even in the very sad event of that officer being Trump.

Can't pardon himself for state convictions, just federal ones.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Again, what crime (theory) did he commit? The Jury never said what they convicted him of. You have a citizen convicted of a felony that does not know what they were convicted of and the democrats are totally fine with that from the president on down. That should get it overturned alone.

One reason Trump has raised $200M since the conviction, $70M in small donations. Merchan will sentence him to prison and that will solidify his election in my opinion. People have had enough of the authoritarianism and election interference by the dems. Does anyone really think Biden would have been prosecuted by Bragg if Bragg had the same evidence against Biden? We all know he wouldn't.

You really aren't listening are you. Trump was in court when the verdict was read for the crimes charged, starting on page 4949.

Transcript of Trump Manhattan Trial, May 30, 2024

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In my country a male politician usually pays a beautiful escort so she discloses to the audience that she had sex with him...even if it's not true (because he's gay...or something like that)...

so my mind is not able to understand and to accept that Trump had to pay this woman so she won't tell anyone...

I am mystified.

Well, all of the world is not your culture or even your subjective understanding. The same goes for all other humans including me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Glad the orange vomit won't be coming to Australia

If Australia is still a prison colony,
I'd be OK sending the big orange baby there.
How's the dingo population doing these days?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You really aren't listening are you. Trump was in court when the verdict was read for the crimes charged, starting on page 4949.

Transcript of Trump Manhattan Trial, May 30, 2024

View attachment 92303

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

All I am asking is what crime did Trump conceal or commit? Shouldn't Trump know that? The jury never said.

 

[Wandering Monk]

All I am asking is what crime did Trump conceal or commit? Shouldn't Trump know that? The jury never said.

There were three outlined in the judge's charge to the jury. They did not have to be unanimous on which of the three he committed. They only had to be unanimous in their decision that he falsified business records in furtherance of a second crime of which three he defined for them. Read the judges charge to the jury yourself.

 

[Wandering Monk]

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

All I am asking is what crime did Trump conceal or commit? Shouldn't Trump know that? The jury never said.

In those instructions, Justice Merchan explained that under New York state law, falsifying business records is a felony only when it is done to conceal a second crime.
Prosecutors say that Mr. Trump falsified records to conceal a violation of a little-known state election law — Section 17-152 — that forbids conspiracies “to promote or prevent” a person’s election “by unlawful means.”
Justice Merchan made clear that the “unlawful means” mentioned in the election law could include violations of any of three other measures: a federal law governing election contributions, a state law governing false business records or tax laws, including those at a state or federal level.
Justice Merchan then said that while the jury would have to “conclude unanimously” that Mr. Trump had violated Section 17-152 to find Mr. Trump guilty, they did not have to be unanimous about the “unlawful means” that were used.

In other words, the jurors did not have to agree on which of the three other laws had been violated as he conspired to win election. The judge’s instruction is consistent with case law on the topic.

Trump and His Allies Push False Account of What the Judge Told Jurors

A tweet from a Fox News anchor falsely said that the jury would not have to settle unanimously on a charge to find the former president guilty.

www.nytimes.com

 

[fantome profane]

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

All I am asking is what crime did Trump conceal or commit? Shouldn't Trump know that? The jury never said.

You are saying you don't like the way the law is. Fine, you can say that. Perhaps you can lobby to have the law changed and/or vote for candidates that will change the law.

But you can't change the law retroactively just because your orange god-king got convicted.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In my country a male politician usually pays a beautiful escort so she discloses to the audience that she had sex with him...even if it's not true (because he's gay...or something like that)... so my mind is not able to understand and to accept that Trump had to pay this woman so she won't tell anyone... I am mystified.

The two cultures must be different in that regard. Americans are more puritanical. Your culture sounds healthier. Officially, adultery is frowned upon, especially with a porn star, and especially with a wife and new baby at home, but as you have or will see, that only applies to about half of Americans. The other half will overlook it. And remarkably, it's the more religious half.

If you want to be mystified, consider that 81% of white evangelicals voted for Trump in 2016, and that was up to 85% four years later:

And if you want to be further mystified, consider that the Republican party will nominate a twice impeached, four times indicted, convicted felon and adjudicated sexual predator who has at least three more trials ahead of him, is a failed insurrectionist, is looking at jail time, who is a visibly demented, malignantly narcissistic, a pathological liar and career criminal hellbent on revenge. And yet this candidate leads in many polls.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

There were three outlined in the judge's charge to the jury. They did not have to be unanimous on which of the three he committed. They only had to be unanimous in their decision that he falsified business records in furtherance of a second crime of which three he defined for them. Read the judges charge to the jury yourself.

What was it? Shouldn't Trump know what each juror convicted him of? He was the one convicted.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What was it? Shouldn't Trump know what each juror convicted him of? He was the one convicted.

Why are you so laser-focussed on this inconsequentiality? That's not going to get him off.