Guilty as charged.

On all counts

Lol, good.

Biden’s Banana Republic prevails. Trump is now a Mandela, and they destroyed the justice system to rig another election.

Look on the bright side, NOS, Trump will be perfectly color-coordinated in an orange jumpsuit.

I'm amazed at your ability to make 5 different completely insane statements in less than 20 words.

I suspect rather than respect your opinions, so any personal insults only make me feel better.

Feeling's mutual.

Perhaps you ought to tell someone who cares.

30May24

Today in Trumpenfreude

1. NYC felony indictment
31Mar23 :up:
"34 counts of Business Documents Fraud Crealing and/or Covering-up Felonies", etc

https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-full-document-640043319549?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=RelatedStories&utm_campaign=position_02 — 180 Proof

"The Orange Turd" has been flushed! :party:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/30/donald-trump-guilty-hush-money-trial-00160460

LOCK HIM UP! :clap:

update:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/907730

Biden’s Banana Republic prevails. Trump is now a Mandela, and they destroyed the justice system to rig another election. — NOS4A2

You think the jury was planted?

'Trump, a self-proclaimed wannabe autocrat, has made his own criminal case an attack on the rule of law from the start. It is incredibly dangerous to have someone who is supported by a significant percentage of the American people focus on degrading an important American norm. When Trump calls the justice system “corrupt” and “conflicted,” he undermines one of the central tenets of our rule of law: the right to a fair trial. This explains why Trump effectively attempted to undermine a verdict before it was even passed down. He has sought to damage the institution of our justice system from the start. And he has succeeded in chipping away at its perceived legitimacy, long before any verdict was handed down.
...
So what happens now? Now that we have a verdict in the case, there’s a good chance Trump will play it as being what he expected, and even wanted. We should expect him to go scorched-earth, because he so often does. We know he will try to weaponize this verdict and craft it into an assault on the rule of law, on the judge and the jury and on New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

No matter what the outcome, Trump was always going to try to use candidate Trump to help defendant Trump. And any verdict was destined to be molded into his branded narrative of persecution, witch hunts and a fight against the political system. Of that we can be certain" ~ MSNBC

This is the least he deserves. Would have been hung for treason back in the day. Oh well.

Loving the Trumper tears though. When he loses in November, I’m perfectly happy to hear them cry about it all for the next 4 years. Otherwise some two-bit con man getting what he deserves isn’t that interesting.

'The test for us as a nation begins now' ~ Rachel Maddow. Makes the points that Trump's playbook is to discredit the principle of trial by jury and the justice system, in the same way he is trying to discredit the constitution and the political order, and that his lackeys in Congress and in the public are all in on supporting these attempts.

Maddow and MSNBC generally are doing a stellar job articulating the clear and present danger that Trump/MAGA presents to the rule of law and Constitutional democracy, and those engaged in upholding and defending it.

You think the jury was planted?

I think the judge and jury were partial, the crime was made up, the conviction was bought and sold, and it was all a classic show trial serving the ruling regime and their acolytes.

I have been a juror 4 times in the New York State court system. It is very difficult. The knife edge of 'reasonable doubt' is very sharp.

Cope.

Post verdict all the MAGA Republicans are fuming about a 'dark day for America'. If it weren't so serious, it would be laughable - the way Trump has so deftly converted the Republican Party from being law-and-order conservatives, to an angry mob that routinely denigrates the justice system, the FBI, and the Constitution, in service to a personality cult.

But on the positive side

perhaps the most important outcome of this trial is not the verdict, which Trump immediately called a “disgrace” after it was delivered. It is that the system worked. Judge Merchan served admirably, in the face of threats and intimidation from the defendant and his supporters, and bent over backwards to protect Mr. Trump’s due process rights.

The jury appears to have stayed focused and attentive throughout the proceeding, and was careful in reviewing both the judge’s instructions and evidence, making sure they understood the testimony that was presented before them.

The attorneys at the District Attorney’s office who tried the case also faced threats and intimidation and did their job in the face of such threats. Even Mr. Trump’s defense attorneys behaved admirably... — The Daily Beast

It's encouraging how many times the electoral system and the judicial system have stood up to Trump's attacks. He's lost a lot of lawsuits, and has now been convicted of crimes. If the trend continues, and even if it takes some years, he will be convicted of many more. The wheels may be turning slowly, but they’re turning.

I think the judge and jury were partial, the crime was made up, the conviction was bought and sold, and it was all a classic show trial serving the ruling regime and their acolytes. — NOS4A2

Proof?

What irregularities with choosing jury members have been established?
The judge doesn't establish guilt, even if he were partial (and they all are in the US because it's a political position), what did he do specifically that tanked Trump's defence?
The crime is defined in the law, how is it made up? If his actions met the definition, it's a crime.
Who bought who for what for what money?

You've got nothing except that you're apparently a sore loser like Trump.

I think the judge and jury were partial — NOS4A2

Perhaps. Trump is a divisive figure. Most people either hate him or worship him. But if there's evidence of crimes then he still needs to be prosecuted. How would you go about finding an impartial jury, and what makes you think that this wasn't already done in this case?

the crime was made up — NOS4A2

I don’t really know what this means. He was prosecuted under 175.10 - Falsifying Business Records In the First Degree, with the intent to violate 17-152 - Conspiracy to Promote or Prevent Election.

the conviction was bought and sold — NOS4A2

I don't really know what this means either. Are you suggesting that the jury were paid to find him guilty?

The cult is exposed in the nature of this defence.

Back in my misspent youth I had occasion to be shown the certain sign of guilt in the form of the "too many excuses" defence. A fence had been damaged a boy was questioned and his response has remained in my mind for fifty years, as equivalent to a confession: "It wasn't me. — And anyway, it was an accident."

The defence in the case contradicted itself in just this way, and @NOS4A2 has done the same thing again. In order for Trump to be innocent, the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, the legal system, the constitution, and crucially, all his previous lawyers and accountants have to be guilty. And also we who are watching.

It is beyond reasonable doubt, because there is zero evidence, and because it involves way too many conspiracies, that this defence is false.


The trial defence was the same: Stormy lied there was no affair Pecker lied, there was no coverup Then there was the ludicrous defence that any payment to a lawyer must be for legal expenses, then the accountant lied, then his own lawyer at the time was rogue and did all without Trump knowing, Everyone was guilty except Trump.

"It doesn't make sense. And if it doesn't make sense, it's not true." Judge Judy.

It's encouraging how many times the electoral system and the judicial system have stood up to Trump's attacks. — Wayfarer

I will feel encouraged only if he loses the election. Right now, this looks like a nation where only about 50% of the population respects the rule of law. A loss won't cure that problem overnight, but perhaps it will loosen Trump's hold on the GOP, who's sycophant leaders feel compelled to echo the convicted felon's attacks on the justice system.

I will feel encouraged only if he loses the election. Right now, this looks like a nation where only about 50% of the population respects the rule of law. A loss won't cure that problem overnight, but perhaps it will loosen Trump's hold on the GOP, who's sycophant leaders feel compelled to echo the convicted felon's attacks on the justice system. — Relativist

Let's say Trump got prison time, even if it's just one year.

If he were to win the election anyway, what would this mean for the spirit of the US population as a whole? The rest of the world would surely look upon the US as a broken democracy that has lost its ability to function through the framework of a healthy democracy, but what would the people do?

It's not like there's a Mandela at the helm of the party, someone who's been fighting for a good cause and for democracy who is put in jail because of a corrupt state. No, it's a narcissist who's on the brink of being a dictator and who's a convicted criminal for actual crimes in a democratic state.

So, how would the people react? Both short term and long term?

The rest of the world would surely look upon the US as a broken democracy that has lost its ability to function through the framework of a healthy democracy, [...] — Christoffer

Is your impression that this isn't already the case? :chin:

Is your impression that this isn't already the case? — Tzeentch

Yes, but that's already obvious for most intellectuals. I'm wondering how the general public will react, think and act. If he were to be elected president while being in prison, how would the general public behave? And on top of that, let's say he actually starts to act like a dictator and begin some retribution, what then?

Perhaps. Trump is a divisive figure. Most people either hate him or worship him. But if there's evidence of crimes then he still needs to be prosecuted. How would you go about finding an impartial jury, and what makes you think that this wasn't already done in this case?

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?

I don’t really know what this means. He was prosecuted under 175.10 - Falsifying Business Records In the First Degree, with the intent to violate 17-152 - Conspiracy to Promote or Prevent Election.

Have you heard the phrase “novel legal theory”? It suggests the unprecedented nature of any given legal theory. The fact that the FECA, the Justice department, Bragg's predecessor, and even Bragg himself refused to bring charges indicates how Bragg had to conjure out of legalese a ploy to prosecute a former president that he campaigned on getting.

I know you wrote it down, but do you think that Trump intended to violate 17-152, which is an obscure, rarely used New York state law? I suppose prosecutors would have had to prove that Trump first new about this law, and then intended to violate it. I don't see how one could believe that. But forgiving all that, what are the "unlawful means" through which Trump intended to violate this obscure misdemeanor which is well passed its statute of limitations?

According to the corrupt judge's jury instructions, the unlawful means were one or more of three "theories". Not even the judge knows the unlawful means through which 17-152 was violated, so he corruptly tells the jury that they don't even need to agree to the unlawful means through which Trump violated 17-152. No one seems to care that Trump has not been convicted of any of the "unlawful means" theories, and therefor there is no way to determine whether the "unlawful means" were indeed unlawful, and this in a country with the presumption of innocence. One of these "theories" is federal campaign laws. No one seems to care that Bragg and that court have no jurisdiction over federal campaign laws, nor that the FEC or DOJ found any but violation of it, and the judge doesn't mind leaving this out of his jury instructions.

So Trump has been found guilty of writing "legal expenses" in a ledger, in order to commit a crime that no one has heard of, and doing so by using "unlawful means" that have not been determined to be unlawful by any court of law.

So all of this (and much more) is why I call this a made up crime.

I don't really know what this means either. Are you suggesting that the jury were paid to find him guilty?

It's an English idiom, "like bought and paid for". It means "corrupt".

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. — NOS4A2

It's a New York crime so was always going to be tried in New York.

If it makes you feel better, his Florida trial will be in an area that heavily favours Republicans, so you can be grateful of a biased jury in his favour, and with a biased judge he appointed.

I suppose prosecutors would have had to prove that Trump first new about this law, and then intended to violate it. — NOS4A2

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

What irregularities with choosing jury members have been established?
The judge doesn't establish guilt, even if he were partial (and they all are in the US because it's a political position), what did he do specifically that tanked Trump's defence?
The crime is defined in the law, how is it made up? If his actions met the definition, it's a crime.
Who bought who for what for what money?

You've got nothing except that you're apparently a sore loser like Trump. — Benkei

Although I don't doubt Trump has committed all sorts of crimes, the following explanation by the BBC:

Beyond that, the novel legal strategy taken by the District Attorney in this case may also provide grounds for appeal.

Falsifying business records can be a lower-level misdemeanour in New York, but Trump faced more serious felony charges because of a supposed second crime, an alleged illegal attempt to influence the 2016 election.

Prosecutors broadly alleged that violations of federal and state election laws, along with tax fraud, applied to this case. But they did not specify to the jury exactly which one was broken.

Legal experts say there are questions around the scope and application of the federal law that could form a basis for appeal. Never before has a state prosecutor invoked an uncharged federal crime, and there’s a question if the Manhattan District Attorney had the jurisdiction to do so. — BBC

Does seem honestly bizarre to me.

Prosecuting a political figure under the condition where "never before has a state prosecutor invoked an uncharged federal crime" does seem simply serious corruption of going after political enemies with spurious charges.

If the situation was highly unique, then novel legal arguments wouldn't be surprising, but not only does the situation not seem that unique at all, falsifying business records happens all the time, but the novel legal argument is of an entire category of no prosecutor ever having invoked uncharged federal crimes of any kind in the history of the state (rather than for example no prosecutor has invoked this particular crime, but generally speaking happens all the time with regard to other crimes, in which case, again, if it was augmenting the list of uncharged federal crimes prosecutors have invoked then it would not be so alarming; but that the whole argument has simply never been even attempted before with regard to any other kind of federal crime, seems pretty mind blowing).

Not that someone who pays porn stars for sex (or pretty much anything else about "the Donald") should be in the running for president of "the free world", but does seem to me exactly the abuse of power to go after Trump his supporters complain about, if these BBC statements are correct.

Proof?

What irregularities with choosing jury members have been established?
The judge doesn't establish guilt, even if he were partial (and they all are in the US because it's a political position), what did he do specifically that tanked Trump's defence?
The crime is defined in the law, how is it made up? If his actions met the definition, it's a crime.
Who bought who for what for what money?

You've got nothing except that you're apparently a sore loser like Trump. — Benkei

It must be true because a lot of people (all Republicans) are saying it. And they'd better!

Former two-term Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, whose decision to run for Senate was seen as giving Republicans a real shot at flipping a blue-state seat, reacted to Donald Trump’s guilty verdict Thursday by calling for respect for the rule of law and urging people not to “pour fuel on the fire with more toxic partisanship.”

Trump’s senior campaign adviser, Chris LaCivita, responded on X, formerly Twitter, with a blowtorch: “You just ended your campaign."

https://rollcall.com/2024/05/30/republicans-whose-races-will-decide-control-of-congress-rally-to-trump/

Let's say Trump got prison time, even if it's just one year.

If he were to win the election anyway, what would this mean for the spirit of the US population as a whole? The rest of the world would surely look upon the US as a broken democracy that has lost its ability to function through the framework of a healthy democracy, but what would the people do?

It's not like there's a Mandela at the helm of the party, someone who's been fighting for a good cause and for democracy who is put in jail because of a corrupt state. No, it's a narcissist who's on the brink of being a dictator and who's a convicted criminal for actual crimes in a democratic state.

So, how would the people react? Both short term and long term? — Christoffer

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