Alvin Bragg downgraded 60% of all felonies in NYC for 2023 (938 total).

Yet for Donald Trump, he upgraded charges from misdemeanor to felony to convict Trump THIRTY FOUR TIMES.

Which means exactly nothing. A person lies 60% of the time but when he spoke to you he spoke the truth. OMG!

Maybe learn how statistics work instead of expressing shock.

But if we assume it occurs, I'm not sure it makes much difference. It won't change anyone's mind, domestically or in other countries. — Relativist

Perhaps it will change the mind of the convict.

He could turn to writing poetry and title the collection: My Imprisonment.

A simple change of venue would have been an appropriate fix. How would you go about finding an impartial court and jury? — NOS4A2

The obvious lesson here, just as in the previous 3 civil law suits: DO NOT DEFAME, SEXUAL ASSUALT, DEFRAUD OR MAKE/TAKE UNLAWFUL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS THAT YOU THEN HAVE TO COVER-UP in a jurisdiction – your hometown! – where you have been very unpopular (as a known bankrupted grifter buffoon & racist bully) for 4-5 decades. Not too effing bright! – and then you (and your "poorly educated" horde of cultists) whine whine whine on about it like most common criminals do. :sweat:

First of all, the chance of Trump spending even a day in prison is zero. — Relativist

Well, my guess (today, 31May24) is that Convicted Felon-1 will be sentenced to 2-4 years for each of the 34 felonies that will run concurrently (so that if only 1 felony survives the appeal process, he will still serve 2-4 years in prison), probably starting in spring 2025. The basis of sentencing will be Convict-1's (a) conspicuous lack of contrition, (b) 10 criminal contempt citations & (c) continuous post-trial attacks on witnesses, jurors, prosecutors et al as well as (d) the scope of the predicate crime (that his co-conspirator Michael Cohen was sentenced to a 3 year prison term by the Feds) that he covered-up in 20i6 & the need to deter him from committing the same 2016 crimes again in 2024.

Also, those 10 criminal contempt citations violate the terms of Convict-1's pretrial release in each of the other 3 juridictions where he has been indicted. While it is unlikely his bail release in either Georgia or Florida will be revoked, it's quite possible that as early as July (after SCOTUS either punts (or does not) or rules that a POTUS has "absolute immunity"), the DC District Judge Chutkan can order Convict-1 remanded to jail until his trial starts. This happens everyday to thousands of criminal defendants, indicted for violent and nonviolent crimes, all across the US in local, state & federal courts – it'll be more egregious special treatment if Convict-1 isn't jailed for violating his pre-trial release (re: criminal contempt of court in NY 10 times).


Political considerations aside, I wonder what TPF's resident lawyers think @Maw @Ciceroianus @Hanover (@Benkei) et al :chin:

Yet for Donald Trump, he upgraded charges from misdemeanor to felony to convict Trump THIRTY FOUR TIMES. — Moses

Actually, it was Trump who upgraded his 34 misdemeanors to 34 felonies, by committing these offenses with the intent of committing additional crimes.

Manhattan voted 85% for Joe Biden, and registered Democrats outnumber Republicans eight to one in New York. The Biden/Harris campaign and a whole host of anti-Trump Democrats pay the judge's daughter an obscene amount of money to work for them. A simple change of venue would have been an appropriate fix. How would you go about finding an impartial court and jury? — NOS4A2

In answer the question in bold: through voir dire. Statistics are not a valid basis for requiring a change of venue:

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-boudin

...no court has articulated a bright-line test whereby a fixed percentage of veniremen [individuals selected either to be screened as potential jurors or to actually be jurors in a case] expressing a preconceived opinion, standing alone, requires a change of venue.

...as recently noted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, "detection of actual prejudice is not accomplished through juggling statistics

Whenever Trump loses, he always claims it was due to unfairness (and of course, his cult members uncritically accept everything he says). His accussations ought to convince no rational person. Hurling ad hominems at judge, DA, and jury is childish and inappropriate.

The jury reached a reasonable verdict based on the case presented and per the jury instructions they were given. The case involves some legal techicalities that depended on the legal judgement of the judge. Each such judgement that the defense appeals will be reviewed by appellate courts. Their assessment will not be based on analyzing Merchan's character. Instead, they will determine if he made errors that could have affected the verdict. That's the way the system works, and it's a pretty good system. It's too bad that Trump supporters refuse to accept that. But of course, they let Trump tell them what to think.

This has been on my mind today. As an American I need to say my piece, loathe as I am to tread in the murky and shark-infested waters of the political forums.

I'm feeling deep sadness and depression today at the country I've woken up in.

I would argue that even if you hate and despise Trump to the ends of the earth; what has happened today is a very bad day in the history of this country.

I'm reminded of one of my favorite films, A Man For All Seasons. Paul Scofield gives an incredible performance as Sir Thomas More, a man of principle who gets in trouble with Henry VIII in the 1530s. It's based on a true story. The State is determined to get him whether he's guilty of anything or not.

There's a scene that's been on my mind lately.

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!” — A Man For All Seasons

― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts

I'm appalled that so many liberals, good liberals whose side I've been on all my life, are so gleeful today. Do you not understand what you've done? The hush money case is a chickenshit case. Bragg's office already looked at it and decided it was a loser. They didn't bring the case. Then the Biden administration actively worked with Bragg's office to revive and prosecute the case.

I will note that the White House has been muted in their public gloating. I think their overnight internal polling is not favorable. Americans, not just those on the right, but centrists and even some liberals, are seeing this the way I see it.

A decent liberal of conscience must have qualms about this conviction. It doesn't matter if Donald Trump is the devil. The precedent set today will not work out as you hope.

This verdict is a bad thing. It does not matter what you think of Donald Trump. It's a blatantly political case: a sitting president using a state judicial system to pursue an extremely weak and petty case against his political opponent in the upcoming presidential election. Not to mention the egregiously biased judge who doesn't care that the case will be overturned on appeal. They just want a conviction today. It's shameful.

I say it's shameful even if Trump is the guiltiest bookkeeper in history, the worst hush money payer, the stupidest Stormy-f*cker ever. I think a lot of people, not just me, and not just those on the right, see this for what it is. It's the most blatant election interference in the history of this country. It's banana republic stuff.

It is possible to loathe Trump and still see that this verdict is indeed, a very bad day for this country. My liberal friends, you have sown the wind, and you will reap the whirlwind.

This is what I came here to say.

Sir Thomas More was beheaded in 1535.

Your premise that it was a weak and petty case needs to overcome the decision by twelve people who do not agree.

Your expectation that the case will be overturned on appeal is another opportunity to possibly encounter disappointment.

I'm appalled that so many liberals, good liberals whose side I've been on all my life, are so gleeful today. Do you not understand what you've done? The hush money case is a chickenshit case. Bragg's office already looked at it and decided it was a loser. They didn't bring the case. Then the Biden administration actively worked with Bragg's office to revive and prosecute the case. — fishfry

I agree it was a chickenshit case, in that it entailed a low level felony that rarely results in prison time, and that it probably leads some to consider his more serious crimes equally chickenshit (they aren't).

But you said some things that are just wrong.
"Do you not understand what you've done? "
What do YOU think we did? We didn't take the case to the grand jury, indict, and try Trump. If I had my way, the federal indictments would have been the only indictments, and they would have been tried by now.

"the Biden administration actively worked with Bragg's office to revive and prosecute the case"
Pure bullshit. If the Biden Administration wanted to prosecute Trump for these crimes they wouldn't have dropped the federal case. Secondly, there's no evidence of involvement by Biden or Garland. Third, it would be stupid, given the truly serious crimes Trump has committed. Bragg had local political motivations that may have led him to go out on a limb on this, but nevertheless it was in his discretion to do so*. That's why a "chickenshit case" was brought.

But even so, that doesn't mean Trump was innocent. The evidence was real, not manufactured. Trump received a fair trial, and a reasonable verdict was reached per the evidence. Trump behaved like a jackass throughout, and his cult parrotted all his childish accusations.

And yes, I'm delighted he was found guilty, because that's what the evidence showed, and because Trump was such a jackass about it all- undermining the rule of law and judicial system needlessly. There are statesmanlike ways to deal with a "chickenshit" trial, and when dealt with that way - emotions are kept in check, while respect is maintained for the rule of law and the judicial system.

Another aspect of this is the fact the trial exposed some pretty damnable behavior, irrespective of legality. He and Pecker cheated by killing negative stories and publishing false ones about opponents. Most immoral behavior is not a punishable crime, so there's some satisfaction when it is at least exposed. Interestingly, I haven't seen a single Republican make a negative comment about it. Instead, they just say "it's legal" - implying it's perfectly fine since it's legal.

* Will Republican DAs retaliate by going after Dems? Maybe, but as long as they are simply looking at real crimes, I don't care. I support holding politicians accountable.

What I honestly think is that he'll win the presidency and national interests will allow him to serve his term without interruption by these criminal matters.

I don't see these charges resulting in jail time anyway. He's a non-violent first offender at 76 years old. You're getting carried away with all the things he's done that he hasn't been convicted of. The guy doesn't deserve jail for this. Judges tend to be tempered so I don't expect you'll get to see the vengeance you want. And there will be appeals and appeals.

This hush money conviction is no big deal, and I doubt you'd care much if Trump were an otherwise decent guy. The judge is required to look at this conviction in isolation. He can't pile on just because Trump is otherwise a piece of shit.

This fight ends at the ballot box. Be afraid of that and stop watching the sideshow. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

There's no such thing as bad publicity. — Hanover

This only reflects your lack on conscience on such matters. If those bible thumpers aren't persuaded by his playboyism, then what does that mean about what they think he is?

Honestly it seems like that precedent was crossed long ago when the Republicans did their witch hunt of Bill Clinton for an affair back in the 90s. I've no doubt they'll try something like this again if they get into power (Trump especially).

Of course there's always the risk of going too far in trying to prosecute someone that it backfires politically on the other side, which is probably the only safeguard we have left in today's hyperpolarized society. The impeachment of Clinton blew up in the Republican's faces 25 years ago and this conviction of Trump may blow up in the Democrat's faces too though personally I doubt it. Most polling seems to suggest that the public sees Trump as an obvious criminal and they seem to support the conviction on that basis. So much as people see Trump as a victim it seems to be largely coming from Trump's core base of support. Whatever bump Trump could have gotten from them has already manifested when he was indicted in the first place, which allowed him to win the primary. The general election is another matter entirely.

This only reflects your lack on conscience on such matters — Shawn

I personally may of may not lack a conscience and may have to one day wrestle beezlebub as he tries to drag me into the pits of hell, but nevertheless, there is no such thing as bad publicity. He's gone 4 years as a regular citizen who hasn't been left out of a single news cycle. Call him a genius or call him Satan, but either way, you'll be calling him Mr. President come November.

Call him a genius or call him Satan, but either way, you'll be calling him Mr. President come November. — Hanover

Man, haven't we come a far far far way from what got Nixon and Clinton ousted from the presidency.

Yeah, and people would even call this a "good thing."

I don’t really care about case text and legalism, especially from a corrupt judicial system. All of that can be bent to suit one’s political will like Bragg and the judge has done here. All this “rule of law” hokum doesn’t mean much when the law is shit.

The repetition of bromides is the game. What they lack, however, is the moral argument. The whole case was wrong to prosecute, wrong to bring to trial, and wrong to convict someone of, let alone to convict one’s political opponents in the lead up to an election. But because they cannot help themselves they did it anyways, and thanks to Trump’s resiliency, I get to sit back and watch the goons expose themselves for the world to see.

In any case, Trump’s political career will soon be over, but the stain of what his opponents have done will remain forever. All of it is now marked in history, along with a litany of other bumbling hoaxes and persecutions, and I can’t help to be happy for it.

I don’t really care about case text and legalism, — NOS4A2

You've previously said you don't care if your hero breaks the law or does anything immoral, so I knew you wouldn't care about the law. Of course, this makes your position self-defeating.

Sad that Trump helped make the lunatic fringe mainstream.

haven't we come a far far far way from what got Nixon and Clinton ousted from the presidency. — Shawn

Clinton (I assume you mean Bill) was not ousted. He completed two full terms.

Then the Biden administration actively worked with Bragg's office to revive and prosecute the case. — fishfry

This is a lie.

This verdict is a bad thing. It does not matter what you think of Donald Trump. It's a blatantly political case: a sitting president using a state judicial system — fishfry

Nope. Total bullshit.

It’s a good thing when a criminal gets convicted of crimes. This one isn’t too important — there are others. But you crying about it because you’ve bought into Sean Hannity’s analysis of political persecution by Biden— where there’s no evidence whatsoever — is a joke.

Spare us.

The hush money case is a chickenshit case. Bragg's office already looked at it and decided it was a loser. They didn't bring the case. Then the Biden administration actively worked with Bragg's office to revive and prosecute the case. — fishfry

Not true. It was a very tawdry case but the facts presented to an impartial jury resulted in a guilty verdict. The Office of the President had nothing whatever to do with it, that is a MAGA lie. Here’s a factual account of the background to the case (gift link.)

Trump is facing numerous other felony indictments plus hundreds of millions of dollars in civil penalties. Regrettably many of these cases don’t look like starting before the election but in any case, his political fate will be decided at the ballot box, and despite all the hype, I believe he will be soundly beaten in November.

But what is really depressing is that Trump and his minions are actively attacking the rule of law and the constitutional order, every day. They are spewing lies and spawning attacks on jury members, voting office workers, and many other federal and state officials. And yet the representatives of one of the two major political parties in America are now all in on it and coming out in support of what amounts to a political personality cult. We are witnessing a real struggle for the survival of democracy in America. It’s no longer just a contest between Democrats and Republicans. Democracy itself is on the ballot.

While we’re at it - the other obvious point is that Trump has no platform. He has no policies or policy proposals. His ‘campaign speeches’ only consist of grievances, threats and lies. No rational argument can be given for why he should be considered a candidate, beyond the fact of his identity.

I don't see these charges resulting in jail time anyway. — Hanover

:ok:

Skip to the end if you like, and see what convicted felon Trump said back when he was committing his felonies, about his opponent, Hilary Clinton, who he supposed might be charged with a felony.

Everything he says about others, is the projection of what he really thinks and feels about himself. As soon as I can afford to, I will pity him for his tortured existence.

"He's incredibly conflicted and corrupt."

Everything he says about others, is the projection of what he really thinks and feels about himself. As soon as I can afford to, I will pity him for his tortured existence. — unenlightened

Trump was heavily criticized for saying Clinton should go to jail. The argument back then was that first world nations didn't try to imprison their ousted opponents.

Truth is though it's a balancing act between not allowing anyone to be above the law versus being a banana republic that throws their political opponents in jail.

I think we've not achieved that balance, but have gone overboard with this campaign funding hush money whatever it is to vanquish an enemy. The question as to whether we did go overboard will be answered by the people in November. That's how democracy works, with the people getting the final say.

And it's not missed on me that Trump seeks refuge in an election, the very place he's claimed is hopelessly fixed against him. I'm actually looking forward to his victory so I can hear him declare how the people have vindicated him in a fair and honest election. It's not that I like the guy. I'm just a fan of irony of biblical proportions.

The judge is required to look at this conviction in isolation. He can't pile on just because Trump is otherwise a piece of shit. — Hanover

Not in a general sense, but there have been people who got worse sentence because they acted like assholes towards the judge. Trump’s continuous threats against people involved in this trial could factor in as attempts to obstruct the justice system and lead to a sentence that is more severe.

It may be that he gets three months in prison, no one knows, but even if he got one day in prison it would be of symbolic importance.

This hush money conviction is no big deal, and I doubt you'd care much if Trump were an otherwise decent guy. The judge is required to look at this conviction in isolation. He can't pile on just because Trump is otherwise a piece of shit. — Hanover

Not so. It is the case and the facts to be considered in isolation, not the sentencing. And if appropriate, it is his business to "pile on." That is why there are sentencing guidelines, and why a judge in many cases will receive recommendations.

And this is enshrined - not necessarily for the better - in some states with so-called "three-strikes" laws that impose harsh sentences on those who have been convicted for multiple offenses, the punishment not so much, or necessarily, fitting the crime, but instead the man.

Truth is though it's a balancing act between not allowing anyone to be above the law versus being a banana republic that throws their political opponents in jail. — Hanover

Banana republics traditionally do both, so it's more a matter of choosing which end of the banana you want to eat and which end you want to pratfall on.

The question as to whether we did go overboard will be answered by the people in November. That's how democracy works, with the people getting the final say. — Hanover

No, no, no! In a trial the law gets the final say. Or maybe you merely meant that the vote might be susceptible to interpretation as an expression writ large of an opinion. Of course to be more than an opinion, the people have recourse to both courts and legislature....

Modern politics is a giant clown car any way.

The best thing you can do is get off and laugh at the spectacle.

I wish we could laugh about our politicians, but over here in Europe it's not even funny anymore. It's just sad.

So I guess American politics beats European politics in that regard.

Modern politics is a giant clown car any way. — Tzeentch

Agreed which is why it's hard for me to take people's concerns about how unprecedented this latest ruling is seriously. I agree with some that this is certainly the weakest case that Trump had to face, but the stronger and more serious cases (like the documents and election interference cases) were intentionally delayed by Trump and his hand-picked judges to happen after the election, which may not happen at all if he wins and pardons himself before hand. In a day and age where people are casually talking about that this grand plan to avoid legal consequences as if it's a totally cool and normal thing for one to do, then concerns about breaking precedent doesn't seem to ring as strongly as it used to 10 years ago. It seems like precedent is being broken every single week as Trump tests our system of checks and balances in a way nobody else has.