Just now, HappyExpat57 said:

"The order does not restrict Trump's statements about Merchan and Bragg."

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-does-gag-order-mean-trumps-hush-money-case-2024-04-12/

 

yeah, sure, but it's still defamation.

I wasn't thinking about the gag order which is now extinct.

 

his statement is defamation, against a judge nonetheless. this kind of misconduct has to be sanctioned immediately.

Just now, tgw said:

 

yeah, sure, but it's still defamation.

I wasn't thinking about the gag order which is now extinct.

 

his statement is defamation, against a judge nonetheless. this kind of misconduct has to be sanctioned immediately.

I understand the gag order is still in effect until his sentencing.

58 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Here you go. Add womans rights and see how the female turn out the vote.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

 

The problem is that Trump plays populist politics in every US issue. He manufactures issues that weren't even issues and then says he'll solve them. For abortion he will just come out and say its a state issue, thereby appeasing many and mitigating responsibility.

29 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Really interesting interview:

Kaitlan Collins asked Todd Blanche if he regrets not having Trump take the stand. Hear his response.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5dHFcyRG94

 

Funny stuff. You could tell he didn't even believe the things he was saying. I wouldn't want him defending me 

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

The jury deliberated for less than 12 hours. Almost like they had already made their minds up. 

 

 

Of course the rich and powerful can be convicted. It depends if they are on the wrong side of the political divide. 

 

Look at Thailand for example, Thaksin (like Trump) was removed. In fact Thailand now has many similarities to the USA in terms of removing popular politicians via kangaroo courts.

Trump was removed from office by a fair and democratic election.

 

Trump was indicted by a Grand Jury,

Trump has been convicted by a jury of his pears in open court.

 

If you have evidence that the Jury did not give right and proper consideration to the evidence and testimony presented in court, let’s be having it.

 

 

32 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Really interesting interview:

Kaitlan Collins asked Todd Blanche if he regrets not having Trump take the stand. Hear his response.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5dHFcyRG94

 

 

My take - his attorney threw him under the bus. "It was his decision."

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

Even the Prosecution's opening statement said that they make no claim as to whether the Daniels dustup would have materially affected the 2016 election results.

Was it necessary for the prosecution to show effect or just intent?

4 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Was it necessary for the prosecution to show effect or just intent?

I don't know -- the word 'effect' is not in the jury instructions.

12 hours ago, Roo Island said:

Fantastic news. Finally

However it doesn't stop him running for the Presidency, even from behind bars!  And all the stupid people who buy into his bull manure will no doubt still vote for him.  It is expected that the verdict will bring forward even more dollars for his campaign.

 

Only in America!

9 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

 

My take - his attorney threw him under the bus. "It was his decision."

Blanche also said that some issues for appeal were not just during the trial but written decisions Judge Merchan made prior to the trial

23 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

 

My take - his attorney threw him under the bus. "It was his decision."

A simpler answer is Trump was demanding his attorneys made statements in court that were directed at the ‘court of public opinion’.

 

Many of the statements and points his attorneys made sounded very much like they came directly from Trump’s social media account.

 

Great sound bites to be fed to his rubes but lacking any legal standing.

 

12 hours ago, Roo Island said:

Fantastic news. Finally

Too early to celebrate, he hasn't died yet.

12 hours ago, Tug said:

facts aren’t trump’s friends…..2 impeachments 34 felony convictions adjudged the worst president in history a rapist a charity embezzler a convicted fraud (trump scam university)

Facts aren't your friends, either...

Two impeachment acquittals...

Thirty four convictions that will be overturned...

No "rape" conviction...

No fraud conviction.

Sentencing is going to be very interesting. Trump has hardly endeared himself by accusing the judge of being corrupt, calling his trial rigged and a witch hunt, refusing to accept the verdict of the jury who agreed his guilt so quickly it caught everyone by surprise, continuing to refuse to acknowledge that he did anything wrong at all. No humility, no apology, only ranting against the American legal system and the judge that will sentence him. He just can't keep his ignorant mouth shut, and he is going to pay for that.

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Facts aren't your friends, either...

Two impeachment acquittals...

Thirty four convictions that will be overturned...

No "rape" conviction...

No fraud conviction.

Facts aren't your friends, either...
 

Nor yours or would seem:

 

Thirty four convictions that will be overturned...

 

 

 

12 hours ago, shdmn said:

Convicted felon has a nice ring to it.

"Conviction overturned" will have a nicer ring to it.

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

"Conviction overturned" will have a nicer ring to it.

Hope springs eternal.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Facts aren't your friends, either...
Nor yours or would seem:

Thirty four convictions that will be overturned...

They will be, that is a fact.

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

They will be, that is a fact.

555

Speculation of the worst kind.

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

They will be, that is a fact.

That’s the kind of prediction that is perhaps better saved for your days out at Aintree.

3 hours ago, BobBKK said:

 I understand that but how about misdemeanours not prosecuted, many years old, and outside statute of limitations? 

 

What are you talking about? These charges? If they were outside any statute of limitations, even semi-competent lawyers could get them dismissed in a heartbeat.

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

8 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

They will be, that is a fact.

That’s the kind of prediction that is perhaps better saved for your days out at Aintree.

 

New York convictions are rarely overturned, and those are usually due to DNA evidence. I don't think the convicted felon wants to go there.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overturned_convictions_in_the_United_States

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

9 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

They will be, that is a fact.

That’s the kind of prediction that is perhaps better saved for your days out at Aintree.

Hope springs eternal!

15 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

Sentencing is going to be very interesting. Trump has hardly endeared himself by accusing the judge of being corrupt, calling his trial rigged and a witch hunt, refusing to accept the verdict of the jury who agreed his guilt so quickly it caught everyone by surprise, continuing to refuse to acknowledge that he did anything wrong at all. No humility, no apology, only ranting against the American legal system and the judge that will sentence him. He just can't keep his ignorant mouth shut, and he is going to pay for that.

Fortunately judges are not supposed to be in the business of being vindictive, so I suspect the sentence will be at the lower end of guidelines and will probably not even involve jail time.
 

2 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

New York convictions are rarely overturned, and those are usually due to DNA evidence. I don't think the convicted felon wants to go there.

So what?  He'll be going there.

1 hour ago, gravity101 said:

The SC won't have anything to do with that hot potato if they can escape it I bet.  He'll have to get through two NY appeals courts first anyway. It's certainly not the process that the SC will hear it. They may eventually get a request to hear it but they'll give a reason not to entertain it.

Like they did with Immunity?

 

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

So what?  He'll be going there.

You really don't get it, do you?

10 minutes ago, Moncul said:

Fortunately judges are not supposed to be in the business of being vindictive, so I suspect the sentence will be at the lower end of guidelines and will probably not even involve jail time.
 

 

It isn't a case of being vindictive. It's repeated contempt of court and the legal process. He was already warned, I think, 10 times during the trial, and there are penalties for not recognising the authority of the court.

6 minutes ago, Moncul said:

Like they did with Immunity?

 

Supposedly they are going to give a decision on that soon.

Wow....huge win for the Don......every single person with a vote, voted for him....100% turnout as well.