• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: Criminal Charges/convictions Against Trump / Trump Indicted / Hush Money Part IV

There is no case other than maybe the hush money thing that will finish before the election then?

Georgia and the documents case are effectively out until after the election. The documents Judge is a Trump crony and she's delaying it every chance she's gotten.

I'm not sure about the Washington DC case. Maybe someone else is up to speed.
 
Hasn't it been a somewhat popular point of view that the 34 felony convictions have been good for Trump's polling?

To take full advantage of that dynamic you'd think the Republicans would want to get the next three trials underway ASAP.
 
Trump does not represent the extreme right wing, nor does the Speaker, they are now firmly the bulk of the rightwing in the USA, they are simply the right wing. The nearest to extremist right wingers in the USA are now the likes of self identified Nazis and even they are not that extreme!

You have a point. I'm old enough to remember when MAGA would have been considered extreme by even most Republicans.
 
Hasn't it been a somewhat popular point of view that the 34 felony convictions have been good for Trump's polling?

To take full advantage of that dynamic you'd think the Republicans would want to get the next three trials underway ASAP.

I find it odd that it hasn't made a difference. The race is, according polling still a tie. I'm not sure polling is that useful. I am interested to see polling results the week after he's sentenced. If he is sentenced to prison I suspect that will have an impact, probably not in states fully infested with the enemy but in swing states, it could be enough to swing them toward Biden.
 
Judge in Trump's hush money case raises questions about social media post claiming to preview jury verdict

The New York judge overseeing Donald Trump's hush money trial has asked attorneys in the case about a social media post purporting to preview the former president's guilty verdict.

“Today, the Court became aware of a comment that was posted on the Unified Court System’s public Facebook page and which I now bring to your attention,” Judge Juan Merchan wrote in a letter dated Friday.

“My cousin is a juror and said Trump is getting convicted,” the post stated, according to Merchan's letter. “Thank you folks for all your hard work!!!!”

Merchan said that the comment, which was attributed to a user identified as Michael Anderson, was "now labeled as one week old," and was posted in response to a routine notice from the court posted on May 29 about oral arguments unrelated to proceedings in Trump’s case.

When a defendant who has been convicted by a jury but has not yet been sentenced learns of alleged jury misconduct, he can move to set aside the verdict under New York criminal procedure law. If a defendant can prove that jury misconduct “may have affected a substantial right of the defendant,” the remedy is a new trial.

Let's hope that there really wasn't any jury leak, and that this jerk was just a stupid **** poster.
 
Last edited:
My friend's cousin's ex-roommate's former cat's owner's mother-in-law's cousin's personal trainer's boyfriend's brother dated a juror and said they decided on the verdict during a group dump in the bathroom during jury selection, and that's enough legal basis to throw out the verdict and dismiss the charges in that way that means they can never be brought again, also the prosecutor has to pay Trump a billion dollars in damages and also Trump smells good. Because that's how things work!
 
My friend's cousin's ex-roommate's former cat's owner's mother-in-law's cousin's personal trainer's boyfriend's brother dated a juror and said they decided on the verdict during a group dump in the bathroom during jury selection, and that's enough legal basis to throw out the verdict and dismiss the charges in that way that means they can never be brought again, also the prosecutor has to pay Trump a billion dollars in damages and also Trump smells good. Because that's how things work!

Seems legit.
 
Ok, some people are cynical about Trump never actually being sentenced to jail, despite the fact that he is now officially a felon. (Its a valid concern). But, it looks like there is some fallout to his conviction...

From: AP News
New Jersey’s attorney general’s office is looking into whether Donald Trump’s recent felony convictions in New York make him ineligible to hold liquor licenses at his three New Jersey golf courses.... State law prohibits anyone from holding a liquor licenses who has been convicted of a crime “involving moral turpitude.”

Ok, its a minor thing, and its possible nothing will come of it. But things like this are probably bugging the heck out of the Trump Klan. (And if he loses his license? Well, that's probably going to affect the profitability of his properties, since I am sure users of the golf courses probably like the idea of drinking after a game.)
 
if Trump was banned from serving alcohol, we would do so anyway, illegally.

Give me a moment to fantasize about ATF raids on all his properties simultaneously.
 
if Trump was banned from serving alcohol, we would do so anyway, illegally.

Give me a moment to fantasize about ATF raids on all his properties simultaneously.

Trump should get the Maximum sentence in New York, not only was Trump a Law Enforcement officer he was the Chief Law Enforcement officer for the Entire United States with the power to fire anyone in the DOJ, or Pardon Anyone he Chose to Pardon, that makes his Crimes against the State of New York worse than if they were done by your average Citizen.
 
He’ll probably just transfer the ownership to one of his kids.


Is that really necessary? I can’t believe that if a man holds the controlling majority of shares in a company, the company can’t serve liquor. Perhaps if Trump owns these golf courses personally, but I think they will always be set up as limited companies (or whatever such a company is called in English).
 
Corporations exist specifically to avoid liability. Criminal, tax, civil, etc. Any judegement agains thim won't affect any of his white trash Versailles unless they were used as part of the crime.
 
Is that really necessary? I can’t believe that if a man holds the controlling majority of shares in a company, the company can’t serve liquor. Perhaps if Trump owns these golf courses personally, but I think they will always be set up as limited companies (or whatever such a company is called in English).

Corporations exist specifically to avoid liability. Criminal, tax, civil, etc. Any judegement agains thim won't affect any of his white trash Versailles unless they were used as part of the crime.

This move by New Jersey does seem poorly aimed. The moral-judgment requirement for a liquor license is usually aimed at sole proprietors—something like the small neighborhood establishments I'm partner in, not a situation where someone else is doing the day-to-day running of the liquor sales. Even if you have the most turpitudinal CEO of a corporation, that is pretty far removed from whoever might be slipping a bottle of beer to some kid out the back door of the 19th Hole at a corporate-owned golf course.
 
The dismissal in the order list gives the disposition: "Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved." If you decode that in connection with what CNN reports from Trump's appeal, it's a particularly abrupt face slap. Trump's lawyers argue that the gag order raises serious constitutional questions regarding core political speech. The Court of Appeals, by that disposition, just bluntly says, "No, it doesn't."
 
The dismissal in the order list gives the disposition: "Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved." If you decode that in connection with what CNN reports from Trump's appeal, it's a particularly abrupt face slap. Trump's lawyers argue that the gag order raises serious constitutional questions regarding core political speech. The Court of Appeals, by that disposition, just bluntly says, "No, it doesn't."


His political policies revolve around punishing everyone who has ever wronged him, so being unable to threaten the people involved in the trial prevents him from fully discussing his policies.
 
His political policies revolve around punishing everyone who has ever wronged him, so being unable to threaten the people involved in the trial prevents him from fully discussing his policies.

You forgot maintaining power and making money.
 
Meanwhile, the Missouri Attorney General has announced his intention to sue the New York Attorney General and Manhattan DA for election interference and wrongful prosecution over the felony trial.

Of course, he announced it on X/Twitter, so who knows if he'll actually manage it.
 
Meanwhile, the Missouri Attorney General has announced his intention to sue the New York Attorney General and Manhattan DA for election interference and wrongful prosecution over the felony trial.

Of course, he announced it on X/Twitter, so who knows if he'll actually manage it.

He has zero standing to do so, so no.

He can sue. You can sue anyone for anything. Not that it would get anywhere.
 
He can sue. You can sue anyone for anything. Not that it would get anywhere.

Looks like Bailey didn't do his legal homework:
According to Axios, Bailey is pursuing his lawsuit against New York on the basis that the statute of limitations for misdemeanor business records falsification expired in 2019.

There’s just two big hiccups with Bailey’s argument: Trump was indicted on 34 felony counts, not misdemeanors, and the statute of limitations for those felonies is five years after the start of criminal proceedings—not two like with misdemeanors. It’s also unclear where Bailey is getting 2019 as a statute of limitations from: The federal criminal proceedings against Trump kicked off in 2018 after an explosive Wall Street Journal story stated Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen paid off Stormy Daniels in 2016. The FBI soon raided Cohen, who that same year pleaded guilty to giving hush-money payments to Daniels and another woman, claiming he did so on Trump’s behalf. State criminal proceedings based on Cohen’s testimony formally began in August 2019, four years before Trump was indicted and five years before he was convicted, all of which fall well within New York’s five-year statute of limitations.

In his rush to preen himself as the ultimate pro-Trump attorney general (during an election year where he’s running against a member of Trump’s legal team), Bailey may soon find himself falling flat on his face: It doesn’t seem Bailey bothered to look into New York’s extremely strong anti-SLAPP laws, which prohibit against retaliatory lawsuits attempting to impede against public participation of matters of public interest. And convicting a former president certainly constitutes a matter of public interest.
 
He can sue. You can sue anyone for anything. Not that it would get anywhere.

True; that was the gist of my statement. You can always file a lawsuit. But it may be summarily dismissed.

Looks like Bailey didn't do his legal homework:

The statute of limitations argument holds, but I don't see how the anti-SLAPP one does. I don't think it can be used (or isn't generally used) by public officials acting in their official capacity. The general intent is for people of limited means to apply it to plaintiffs who sue hoping to bleed you dry and force you into silence. Prosecutorial immunity prevails here. But I could be wrong.

For me the standing argument is still the strongest. A state attorney general doesn't have standing to bring a suit against another state for "election interference" on behalf of a candidate. No one but the prosecuted individual (here, Trump) has standing to sue for wrongful prosecution. And suing the attorney general of another state for doing so? Sheer nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Sigh. Missouri's motto is "Show Me", not "Show Me Your Ass, You Loudmouth Fool" but you'd never know it from how our politicians act.
 
True; that was the gist of my statement. You can always file a lawsuit. But it may be summarily dismissed.
I know it was. And I know it can and will be dismissed.And I surmise the Missouri AG knows all that too. This is publicity and nothing more.

The statute of limitations argument holds, but I don't see how the anti-SLAPP one does. I don't think it can be used (or isn't generally used) by public officials acting in their official capacity. The general intent is for people of limited means to apply it to plaintiffs who sue hoping to bleed you dry and force you into silence. Prosecutorial immunity prevails here. But I could be wrong.

For me the standing argument is still the strongest. A state attorney general doesn't have standing to bring a suit against another state for "election interference" on behalf of a candidate. No one but the prosecuted individual (here, Trump) has standing to sue for wrongful prosecution. And suing the attorney general of another state for doing so? Sheer nonsense.

You're 100 percent right. I really want to read the brief the Missouri AG would file. It would certainly be a monument to stupidity.

The State of Missouri is not a party to NY v Trump. And election interference? How exactly is Trump’s conviction in NY State election interference in Missouri? Federal elections are run by each individual state. Trump's conviction in the State of NY does not interfere in an election in Missouri. I'm guessing he will appeal to the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. But I'm sure this would go against all available precedents.
 
Judge lifts parts of Trump gag order ahead of sentencing in New York criminal case.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/25/politics/trump-gag-order

Heading into Thursday night's debate with President Joe Biden, trump will be able to mention -- or realistically, trash and insult -- Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels' role in trump's conviction on all 34 felony counts.
The judge in Donald Trump’s hush money trial has lifted portions of the gag order restricting what the former president can say about witnesses in the trial, such as Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, two days before Trump will square off against President Joe Biden at the CNN Presidential Debate. Trump, however, cannot discuss any prosecutor, court staffer or their family members, according to a court order on Tuesday from Judge Juan Merchan that rolls back parts of the gag order imposed before the trial began. CNN news link
 
The reason the judge partially lifted the gag order because all the witnesses have finished giving testimony.

Allowing Trump to bring them up at the debate is only good for Biden. I don't think Trump really wants to talk about the porn star he screwed while Melania had just given birth.
 
The reason the judge partially lifted the gag order because all the witnesses have finished giving testimony.

Allowing Trump to bring them up at the debate is only good for Biden. I don't think Trump really wants to talk about the porn star he screwed while Melania had just given birth.

As an aside, it would be interesting to hear Barron's thoughts on that.
 
The reason the judge partially lifted the gag order because all the witnesses have finished giving testimony.

Allowing Trump to bring them up at the debate is only good for Biden. I don't think Trump really wants to talk about the porn star he screwed while Melania had just given birth.

However, I suspect Biden is too much the gentleman to discuss it in those terms.
 
Question: Will they use a split screen so that both Biden and Assolini are visible at all times?

If so (oh please, God! hear an atheist's prayer!), will somebody be on hand to keep DJT reminded not to blather soundlessy, or claw at the glass, or pull out a ketchup sachet and try to paint with it?

Damn but there's some great material going to waste here!
 
Back
Top Bottom