• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Criminal Charges Against Trump / Trump Indicted / Hush Money Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Segnosaur said:
I don't think its necessarily jury nullification you need to worry about (someone declared not guilty despite the evidence.)

I think the bigger risk is a hung jury... one MAGAchud holdout who votes to acquit even though the other 11 vote guilty. (Or, alternatively, someone who legitimately fears for their life if they convict and some more violent Trump supporters learn of their identity and decide to get revenge.). Under those circumstances prosecutors could decide to go to court again. (Which of course will add more delay into things.)

Of course, Stubby McBonespurs will probably take the hung jury and use it to claim innocent (ignoring of course every other juror found him guilty.)

From a little googling... federal grand juries have between 16 and 23 members, and 12 must concur with an indictment. So even if one or 2 MAGAchud manage to sneak on to the jury, it wouldn't be enough to protect Trump from being charged.
Click to expand...

the biggest reason maga folks are maga folks is because they get only carefully filtered information from a handful of news sources. during a trial, they have to sit and listen to the evidence. and it appears to be pretty overwhelming. he also has no real defense to present.
 
It's very dispiriting that distrust in legal authorities by politicians led to very bad results: Clinton did not believe the FBI when it warned about Russian hacking, suspecting that they just wanted her email server.

And Trump distrusted NARA, assuming that they would tell Biden about all dirty things he's done.
 
arthwollipot said:
Only all the time.

I would put money on never. Fleeing would mean acknowledging that he had done something wrong, and he is pathologically incapable of doing that.
Click to expand...

Fleeing is not an acknowledgment of wrong-doing.
If I were falsely accused of a crime and I tought that I could not get a fair trial, I would consider fleeing.

I do agree he is incapable of acknowledging any wrong-doing.
It wasn’t too long ago that he said words to the effect of: if the Constitution says I committed a crime then we should get rid of the Constitution.
 
Checkmite said:
This point is very crucial, because I have a feeling that certain voices will strain to cover it up: Trump is not charged for merely having had classified documents in his possession after his term ended, nor for merely having those documents stored unsecurely. The allegation is that he pointedly acted to hide them and prevent them from being returned to government custody once the government had made it clear they needed to be returned.
Click to expand...

And quite a few of those voices will be Democrats saying that Trump needs to be let off "to return normal politics to America". They did the same thing the last four times a criminal enterprise was installed in the White House.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
And quite a few of those voices will be Democrats saying that Trump needs to be let off "to return normal politics to America". They did the same thing the last four times a criminal enterprise was installed in the White House.
Click to expand...

I think the number of Democrats saying such a thing will be minuscule. There may be some number of unaligned voters and a significant number of reasonable Republicans saying that.
 
shemp said:
He will not flee; that would be tantamount to an admission of guilt. He would rather be a jailed martyr than a guilty fugitive.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that.

It’s like his position that only guilty people plead the fifth. It did not stop him from pleading the fifth when it suited him.

Everything he does is colored by whether it serves him in the moment or not. It’s just too easy for him to paint leaving the country as being “smart”. Not saying he will, but nothing in his mental makeup would stop him if it benefited him in the least.
 
What percentage of the populace supporting a criminal leader would bring a nation into disrepute as a lawless banana republic? Fifty per cent plus one? Fifty per cent minus one? A third? A quarter? To my mind, ten per cent is already too high.

Only too recently the mere perception of impropriety was a disqualifying condition for the great majority of Americans. In no time at all it has got to the point where even murder is quite possibly of no great concern for nearly a third of them. I mean, Drumpf is objectively to blame for excess COVID deaths to the tune of hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen. What an astonishing descent, almost overnight, into depths of societal moral decay. Such mindless nihilism is what has closely preceded the demise of civilizations throughout history.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Not sure about that.

It’s like his position that only guilty people plead the fifth. It did not stop him from pleading the fifth when it suited him.

Everything he does is colored by whether it serves him in the moment or not. It’s just too easy for him to paint leaving the country as being “smart”. Not saying he will, but nothing in his mental makeup would stop him if it benefited him in the least.
Click to expand...
Yep, this.
 
MRC_Hans said:
I don't think fleeing to Russia is a very viable option. Whatever Putin is, he is no fool. He has enough problems on his hands right now without hosting a top level US fugitive.
... Except perhaps as a bargain asset.

Hans
Click to expand...

What - that unless the USA stops aiding Ukraine he'll send him back? :)
 
Lurch said:
What percentage of the populace supporting a criminal leader would bring a nation into disrepute as a lawless banana republic? Fifty per cent plus one? Fifty per cent minus one? A third? A quarter? To my mind, ten per cent is already too high.

Only too recently the mere perception of impropriety was a disqualifying condition for the great majority of Americans. In no time at all it has got to the point where even murder is quite possibly of no great concern for nearly a third of them. I mean, Drumpf is objectively to blame for excess COVID deaths to the tune of hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen. What an astonishing descent, almost overnight, into depths of societal moral decay. Such mindless nihilism is what has closely preceded the demise of civilizations throughout history.
Click to expand...

You have No Idea I told Mitch McConnell Trump would not could be a Threat to national security, and he didn't care as long as he got his Supreme Court Justices.
So here we are!
 
Whew!

That stupid, lying, POS Trump finally got indicted for one of his many criminal crimes.

Hopefully, this one case will lead to at least a few more criminal charges against him.

And in the meantime, Lock Him Up!
 
The case has been assigned to Judge Eileen Cannon, the Trump appointee who previously revealed herself as a MAGA dimwit.

How does that happen?
 
varwoche said:
The case has been assigned to Judge Eileen Cannon, the Trump appointee who previously revealed herself as a MAGA dimwit.
Click to expand...
That is... not good.

Hopefully there is a way for the DoJ to fight the assignment and have it transferred to a more competent judge.

ETA: I think there is the possibility that they may do a split-indictment... prosecute some of his crimes in florida, others in Washington. So you might have a conviction on some crimes but a dismissal on others.

A second ETA: Might not be as bad as we expected.

From: The Hill
Joyce Vance, an attorney who helped draft a model prosecution memo in the case, warned about getting “too spun up” about Cannon’s inclusion, noting the 11th Circuit can order a reassessment, “where a judge leans so heavily for a defendant they call their objectivity in the eyes of the public into question.”... “It is not clear Cannon is permanently assigned to the case. If she is, it’s extremely unlikely it stays with her and as a last resort, DOJ will challenge her participation and win.”
 
Last edited:
A few additional bits of news:

From: Reuters
Two lawyers defending Donald Trump quit the case on Friday... The surprise announcement by Trump's lawyers John Rowley and Jim Trusty could prompt further legal complications ahead of Trump's scheduled appearance in federal court in Miami on Tuesday in the documents case.

I wonder how problematic this will be for Trump, since it seems like he has a hard time finding lawyers at it is. I also wonder about their motivation... tired of representing a client who won't listen? Realizing he will likely lose and don't want to tarnish their reputations?

Also from the article:
The Wall Street Journal at the same time reported that Trump's former military valet, Walt Nauta, had been charged alongside Trump...

Hapless pawn or was he in on it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom