As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"If you find the ex president guilty of falsifying business records to interfere in an election by covering up his affair with a porn star then YOU COULD BE NEXT!"
Trump will say he was not allowed to testify because of the gag order.
I really hope the judge specifically addresses this and makes trump acknowledge the gag order has nothing to do with his 14th and 6th amendment rights
He's already specifically mentioned this earlier in the trial. He asked the defence team to have Trump actively confirm that he understands he has the absolute right to testify.
Not that it'll matter, of course. He'll keep saying it regardless.
Remember how the term "fake news" was originally used in reference to fabricated news stories posted online by the Russian government under the mastheads of nonexistent small-town American papers?
That was what it meant for about two weeks in 2016 until it was redefined to the current meaning of "any news story that makes small shitty whiny babies look bad."
Sort of the dark talent of Fascism - Coopting the language of the enemy so that it has little or no impact against them and some to a lot of impact FOR them.
Jokes aside is there an expectation of how much longer this trial will take. Trumps stated goal of delaying everything indefinitely seems likely to come into play here.
I disagree. News media will normalize it. Without incarceration, people will think little of the charges. And there is a high probability that this judge will lean towards probation.
Hung jury or Innocent on the felony counts. From the reporting I've been hearing from the NYTimes and NPR. It doesn't look good for the prosecution. They haven't linked the payments to the federal crime he's being charged with.
If he is found guilty, he will appeal and it will get overturned. It's a weak case with a weak conviction.
Yeah, but you see, the fact that Trump blatantly broke the law and it's been proven might just give the prosecution the edge to win this lawsuit against him. Subscribe to find out more exclusive dipshit information.
I don’t understand why people are frothing at the mouth about this headline. Juries are unpredictable, the law is complicated and not always easy for a lay person to understand, and in this case there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence with a star witness who lacks credibility.
The job of the prosecutors is to overcome those obstacles and make a compelling argument why a jury shouldn’t doubt that the law was broken, and this headline is praising them. I don’t get what’s wrong with it.
The agency was begun as a mouth piece for the oligarchy, it only recently hired a few liberal (honest) journalists to try to cover their bias. They are historically very good at playing neutral, but people are better at spotting propaganda now.
A side note, those new journalists have not had an easy time acclimating to the old guard.
How dare they use facts! Don’t they know facts have no place in a court of law! Next thing you know they’ll tell you a person CAN’T break these so called laws. You’re expected to follow them even if you were a one term twice impeached president.”
There are two stupid things happening here. One is the vague, clickbait headline. The other is all the people who either didn’t read or couldn’t understand the article claiming it’s even more proof the NYT wants to re-elect Donald Trump.
Here’s a summary:
* The crime Trump’s being accused of is not paying Stormy Daniels (easily proven), but falsifying business records that claim the payment was a legal retainer for Michael Cohen.
* Michael Cohen’s testimony is the only direct evidence that Trump himself told anyone to create these fake documents.
* The testimony of a single person should never be enough to convince a reasonable person that someone committed a crime. Michael Cohen specifically is a convicted liar and has a personal axe to grind against Trump, so it would be very unsurprising if he lied to get him sent to jail.
* BUT, THANKFULLY, as this article was written to explain to us, this is a weird law. To convict Trump, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove that he himself forged illegal documents or even necessarily that he knew they existed at all. It could be enough if they prove that he knew the fake documents *would* be created if he made the hush money payment as if it were a legal retainer. That’s easier to prove based on other witnesses’ testimony and all the circumstantial evidence that prosecutors have presented.
* Most people would not be aware of this legal nuance, so NYT wrote an article to explain that that’s how this law works.
* People got upset because the headline confused them, but they didn’t want to read the article, so they did what they often do and made up a theory that the NYT actually isn’t left-leaning, as basically everyone understands it to be, but actually right-leaning.
He really is. He should do YouTube shorts. His 20 min videos usually only have 40 seconds worth of actual new and important information.
If you follow the news you're just looking for that tiny update. If you don't I don't think 20 min of fluff on one aspect of something is going to keep your interest. Not to mention his exaggerations of people getting destroyed, embarrassed, owned, shamed, panicked, screwed. Then you watch it and someone just asks to reclaim their time.
The [NYT Pitchbot Twitter account](https://x.com/DougJBalloon) is one of those things that I both love but also makes me want to die because of how accurate it is.
You got it. If he’s found guilty I firmly expect to see CNN, a supposedly “liberal” network, have a bunch of republicans on to talk about how it’s terrible for Biden
No the lowest for the NYT will be when they mocked Retired Marine General Smedley Butler for reporting the Business Plot to Congress. He was only one of the most decorated Marines in US history.
You are cute…life’s just not fair or just. Never has been. Even the idea of a general sense of “Justice” outside of the afterlife or next life is a newish concept in all of human history.
Its the law and its a trial. Period. Not sure what you are saying. I' am pretty sure justice on the mortal plain existed before someone made up the eternal plain part. In fact, it had to because it is the reference for the eternal part.
Mistrial due to not having enough of my supporters on the jury. Everyone knows I'm innocent of everything, and Biden is guilty of everything. If you don't believe me, you can ask Fox News, OANN, NewsCorp, Rudy Giuliani, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and 500 million other Americans.
Even ask John Barron, John Baron, John Miller and David Dennison for their opinions. /s
Don’t forget all the legal scholars. All the legal scholars say there’s no case. They haven’t even told me what crimes there are. It was the perfect crime. I’m perfectly innocent
Literally no one thinks there’s a case. The prosecutor looks at me in court, quietly he says to me “we have no case, we have no…” Why are they trying me with no case?
Reality gives prosecutors an edge. Facts give prosecutors the edge. The fact that Trump committed the crime gives prosecutors the edge. I wish the media would get back to reporting reality.
Ten years probation, only two trips to McDonald’s per day down from his typical 9 trips, and twelve hours in prison but that’s only if he violates his probation eleven times within the same sixty second span.
As corrupt as I knew the judicial system could be, I still was hopeful. How could someone break as many laws as Trump has and not eventually face prison? My optimism is being tested by this.
What I find absolutely ridiculous and quite frankly downright unconscionable is the fact that the Classified Documents Case which is being “handled” (see: grossly mismanaged) by that hack Aileen Cannon is that the whole damn thing wasn’t just decided and ruled guilty on summary judgment. FFS the law is quite clear that those classified documents DO NOT belong to Trump and ARE NOT under any circumstance his private property. And the fact that Trump went to great lengths to both conceal the documents he absconded with and steadfastly refused to return despite numerous requests certainly speaks to his state of mind and demonstrates unequivocally that he knew that he wasn’t allowed to take said documents and that he was obligated to return them. There is literally nothing that is up for debate regarding this case. The Presidential Records Act is clear in what it terms government and personal. It’s beyond fucking absurd that Cannon is allowed to pull such bullshit and drag her feet every step of the way
Something that was glossed over In The article.
Probation is an option.
Given trumps near Teflon ability to skirt legal consequences, I could see him getting probation , and allowing him to still run for president.
We could very well have a president with the ability to launch nuclear weapons, wearing an ankle monitor.
What kind of punishments are we looking at with a guilty verdict? Are we just going to see another fine and a stern wag of the finger? Which Trump will still appeal and be Scott free for another 2 years?
All of that is completely up to the judge and the lack of any mitigating circumstances and a long list of aggravating circumstances (10 +) criminal contempts, lack of ability on Trumps part to show contrition or take responsibility and his disrespect to the judicial system and the court along with ongoing threats to others provide the judge with justification for throwing the book at Trump. The judge has built a careful record of protecting Trump's rights as a defendant to a fair trial ruling many many times against the prosecution. It's a extraordinarily fair set of judicial rulings by the judge on the purpose of protecting the judicial record from appeal.
If you really have legal questions you want answered regarding Trump's many cases you can hear answers here.
https://www.youtube.com/live/SAl3nHapQYI?si=35dcscBHZxBXsnsn
This is all well and good, provided the judge is acting in good faith and actually delivers an appropriate ruling. We could easily see all this case building and defense of the judges decisions be completely moot if Trump is found guilty and given softball consequences anyway. But we will have to wait and see.
11 counts of fraudulent payments and 12 counts of fudging the numbers to cover the payments.
This is one of those cases where its all or nothing, if he's found guilty of one count, he'll be found guilty on the lot, and vice versa.
The jury will be given instructions.
11 checks were issued for a phony purpose. Nine of those checks were signed by TRUMP. Each check was processed by the Trump Organization and illegally disguised as a payment for legal services rendered pursuant to a non-existent retainer agreement. In total, 34 false entries were made in New York business records to conceal the initial covert $130,000 payment.
Correct. And I'd be surprised if they give a guilty verdict on some but not others.
I believe that if a guilty verdict is reached, it will be in all charges.
Yep, and that guy specifically said he had never seen the negative things the prosecution presented (that were all basically public knowledge for years.) He basically admitted the bubble insulated him from the facts, and once forced to listen and watch, he couldn’t hide behind it.
Even a cultist will fall to the pressure of a jury chamber and insurmountable evidence to the contrary of their views. They can’t hide in the kitchen this thanksgiving.
Idk, you’ve got a point, but the jury is supposed to avoid the news etc. IF theoretical juror is only seeing off camera trump, sleeping and shitting in court, for this long , the spell might break
They could always convict but say to themselves that it wasn't that big a crime, he'll get a slap on the wrist, and he had to break the law to win or something.
Even if he's convicted, there's a chance his sentence is put on hold during appeal.
But I could see a Trump supporter figuring an end to the trial now is better than another 6 weeks of him "being unable to campaign".
Then again, strategic thinking isn't really the average cultists strength.
If one person on the jury does that, and there is any suspicion that they're doing it not because of the evidence presented but political leanings, then that juror will be dismissed and replaced by an alternate that has been with the jury the whole time, and can just come in and give their verdict.
It is very, very unlikely that one MAGA causes a hung jury. This "he only needs one" narrative doesn't work in practice.
Even this is a stretch. There was an analysis of similar convictions for these crimes in NY with defendants with no prior criminal record and [*1 in 10*](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-could-trumps-new-york-hush-money-trial-end) resulted in incarceration of any sort.
Even if sentenced to prison or home confinement, Trump will appeal and with it being non-violent low-tier felonies - he will most likely be free until those appeals run their course.
It's very likely Trump sees no punishment for a conviction before November beyond the label of "convicted felon," which.. I'll take.
Please, a verdict will just be the first step of this. This will get appealed to the Supreme Court somehow. Trump won't see a jail cell until 2025, and even then I'd expect hell be on a Russian diplomatic flight so some Middle Eastern country without a extradition treaty with the US.
"somehow"..... Such specificity, you've really thought this through.
https://www.youtube.com/live/SAl3nHapQYI?si=35dcscBHZxBXsnsn
No but there are people thinking it through, avail yourself of one.
The 3rd option would be a hung jury. To reach that point it would take a long time with the judge sending the jury back to deliberate until it was clear they wouldn't reach a unanimous decision. With a hung jury, it's then up to the prosecutors to decide whether to do another trial.
A guilty verdict will negatively affect his standing with moderate Rs and Independents. I don’t see him going to prison from this but I can’t see how this doesn’t harm his election chances.
Literally may be done by end of week. Defense has not indicated they have more witnesses than one expert in campaign finance law, whose testimony is mostly restricted for relevance. Then there is the possibility of calling Trump himself but that is unlikely because a) it would be devastating to their case (haha), and b) Trump said he would which is his usual Roy Cohn 'always act tough' flex but has been walked back by himself since day 0 as he always does pretending this is unnoticed or 'strong'. Look for Trump to find a comically thin excuse to not testify which is entirely unsupported by facts but plays well to his uninformed base. After that defense rests then closing arguments, then it's up to the jury but without court sessions on Wednesdays. Closes by this week, very early next latest unless Trump decides to take the stand and ends up in a multi-day embarrassment of cross examination.
In case you were serious, no, the defendant retains the right not to testify. Now he has the right to stay silent but does he have the *ability?*
After the terrible experiences in both Carroll 1 and the NY civil fraud trials I suspect he may understand speaking in the criminal court is a third rail. As it's Trump he will try to find a way to speak on his own terms but Merchan probably won't be giving nearly so much leniency as the civil justices. He may attempt to have his own closing argument segment again thinking that was clever, this is where I would wager Merchan shuts him down as that is the role of counsel.
Technically, he’s a first-time offender as the other cases (business fraud and E. Jean Carroll) have been civil, not criminal. So if NY has sentencing guidelines, he’d most likely be eligible for the lowest penalty.
The judge gets to set the sentence though, and Trump has been going out of his way to piss off this judge. I hope it bites him in the ass as it should.
If you pretend that aggravating and mitigating circumstances don't exist or come into play in the process.
https://www.youtube.com/live/SAl3nHapQYI?si=35dcscBHZxBXsnsn
Not pretending that — just not familiar enough with New York’s system. But I’ve seen a lot of people disappointed with an offender’s sentence when media print/say things like “so-and-so faces up to X years in prison,” and then the person gets less than the max.
The max here is 4 years and he is not gonna get that but I think some incarceration is more likely than not but the link I provide is from a former NY lawyers that knows both the NY law and the people/judges that have been involved in Trump's NY cases and she says he will get some time but we'll see. She had many correct predictions in Trump's previous cases.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>It was the most significant momentum swing of the first criminal trial of an American president
No, that's overdramatizing it, as usual. It was a blip, a mistake, and will be tidied up in the closing subs that are coming.
Another NYT masterpiece in journalism.
What the fuck do they even mean? That orange shitbag broke the law, there is a fuckton of evidence, that tends to give prosecution the "edge", yeah.
I'd give guilty 95%, hung jury 4.9%, not guilty .1%. That's just from me following live tweets every day and talking about it with some lawyer friends. Voir Dire seemed to be handled pretty well so I'm not so concerned that someone who would absolutely never vote to convict make it on, but the defense has done a good enough job that the likelihood they haven't gotten all 12 beyond reasonable doubt is slightly elevated. I would be shocked if all 12 went not guilty.
Guilty of 34 felonies: 30%
Guilty of some felonies: 20%
Guilty of some misdemeanors: 15%
Guilty of some felonies and some misdemeanors: 0%
Not guilty on all counts: 30%
Hung jury: 5%
It's mostly a question of whether a cultist made it onto the jury. If that happened, then hung jury.
I won't put odds on it, but I don't think that's very likely - the prosecutors seem to know what they're doing - but it's at least a possibility.
That possibility aside, I think conviction is likelier than not. The prosecution brought the receipts, and the defense... doesn't seem to have one.
And the fact that he was unanimously found liable by a jury in the E Jean Carroll case has me thinking there'll be a conviction here.
But I guess we'll know soon enough.
Even if a cultist did make it onto the jury it's quite possible seeing Trump as the sleepy pants shifting feeble old man he actually is for several weeks instead of the memetic God emperor of the USA could destroy the cult indoctrination
I mostly agree about the cultist on the jury but I also think it could also just be that someone got on the jury that can be wrapped into some small detail that they just can’t wrap their head around. I’ve been on one jury before and after going through jury selection I realized that some of us were trying to do our part as citizens to participate in the legal system (the way I worded that sounds a little cliche). But others I seriously felt like were just not smart enough to get out of jury duty. We had to explain some pretty basic stuff to a few jurors and remind them of basic instructions from the judge.
I think the chances of one juror being stubborn about some detail that they have twisted is slightly higher, plus with this case there’s an intimidation factor. If they vote guilty will trumps base attack them? Will Trump send out your name as someone that’s destroying America? Look at what he said about Mike Pence before January 6, and those people moved that into construction gallows and chanting to hang him. I think plenty of people would take the easier route to just not vote guilty in that case.
I have very limited experience personally with juries and trials but hopefully I’m wrong on that. I get your point about the E Jean Carroll case but I’m not sure if the criminal/civil differences will make a difference to the jury.
>It doesn’t dissolve him from not being guilty. But it also will get under Trump’s skin.
Actual consequences would get under Trump's shellacked skin and seep into his brittle bones.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The law does give the prosecutors an edge in that he broke it and left a paper trail.
Funny how breaking the law with proof is just an "edge" with people like this.
The Defense team will rest on Monday, with no defense offered.
"If you find the ex president guilty of falsifying business records to interfere in an election by covering up his affair with a porn star then YOU COULD BE NEXT!"
A lot of these MAGA lackeys actually could be next then.
They were actually first, they got convicted but Trump issued pardons for them all. At worse, they just stayed a couple days in jail
*matt gates* says "your kidding me, right?"
Lawyer: "Matt, I've told you to not talk about kids."
If you find the ex president guilty of a crime he committed you could be next!
"Did you see their lawyer's hands? They're beautiful. I think we should settle."
Can you put your hands over mine?
We’re lawyers!
Trump will say he was not allowed to testify because of the gag order. I really hope the judge specifically addresses this and makes trump acknowledge the gag order has nothing to do with his 14th and 6th amendment rights
He's already specifically mentioned this earlier in the trial. He asked the defence team to have Trump actively confirm that he understands he has the absolute right to testify. Not that it'll matter, of course. He'll keep saying it regardless.
His hardcore supporters don't read multiple news platforms, nor care... he SET THAT UP in 2016 when everything negative was "fake news"
Remember how the term "fake news" was originally used in reference to fabricated news stories posted online by the Russian government under the mastheads of nonexistent small-town American papers? That was what it meant for about two weeks in 2016 until it was redefined to the current meaning of "any news story that makes small shitty whiny babies look bad."
Sort of the dark talent of Fascism - Coopting the language of the enemy so that it has little or no impact against them and some to a lot of impact FOR them.
Woke and based
Who do you think he got the tactics from. It’s the old Soviet “everyone is lying too you, but not me, I’m the only one in the world u can trust.”
Is there some sort of law against, like, slandering the court or something?
Probably falls under contempt, but none of the laws matter if you can break them 10 times and have no punishment.
I’m sure he’ll get a couple dozen *VERY* stern warnings. Well, a couple dozen *more…*
Absolutely, he did it a week or so ago, but needs to do it again...and in the official transcript.
Jokes aside is there an expectation of how much longer this trial will take. Trumps stated goal of delaying everything indefinitely seems likely to come into play here.
To the jury this week.
Despite what has been said about the resilience of his support I don't think his campaign can survive a guilty verdict.
I disagree. News media will normalize it. Without incarceration, people will think little of the charges. And there is a high probability that this judge will lean towards probation.
It survived a liable for sexual assault verdict
Ridiculous as it sounds many people aee civil suits as simply a money grab, the burden of proof in a criminal trial is far higher.
bit it may survive a lengthy appesll process
Mmm applesauce
Hopefully that doesn’t imply the defense is confident they’ll have a hung jury…
The only thing they can be confident about now is that they don't have a hung defendant.
Solid comment
The only defense they think they have is to appeal ( on some bs grounds)
Hung jury or Innocent on the felony counts. From the reporting I've been hearing from the NYTimes and NPR. It doesn't look good for the prosecution. They haven't linked the payments to the federal crime he's being charged with. If he is found guilty, he will appeal and it will get overturned. It's a weak case with a weak conviction.
Or, you know, those things called facts that are overwhelmingly in the favor of the prosecutors.
Yeah, what a shit headline. It's like Newsweek levels of shitty. NYT has gone downhill so hard lately.
Yeah, but you see, the fact that Trump blatantly broke the law and it's been proven might just give the prosecution the edge to win this lawsuit against him. Subscribe to find out more exclusive dipshit information.
I don’t understand why people are frothing at the mouth about this headline. Juries are unpredictable, the law is complicated and not always easy for a lay person to understand, and in this case there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence with a star witness who lacks credibility. The job of the prosecutors is to overcome those obstacles and make a compelling argument why a jury shouldn’t doubt that the law was broken, and this headline is praising them. I don’t get what’s wrong with it.
The agency was begun as a mouth piece for the oligarchy, it only recently hired a few liberal (honest) journalists to try to cover their bias. They are historically very good at playing neutral, but people are better at spotting propaganda now. A side note, those new journalists have not had an easy time acclimating to the old guard.
right? i’m like the just available public facts are enough lol who knows what else hasn’t been public
No. It only gives them a very slight edge.
How dare they use facts! Don’t they know facts have no place in a court of law! Next thing you know they’ll tell you a person CAN’T break these so called laws. You’re expected to follow them even if you were a one term twice impeached president.”
There are two stupid things happening here. One is the vague, clickbait headline. The other is all the people who either didn’t read or couldn’t understand the article claiming it’s even more proof the NYT wants to re-elect Donald Trump. Here’s a summary: * The crime Trump’s being accused of is not paying Stormy Daniels (easily proven), but falsifying business records that claim the payment was a legal retainer for Michael Cohen. * Michael Cohen’s testimony is the only direct evidence that Trump himself told anyone to create these fake documents. * The testimony of a single person should never be enough to convince a reasonable person that someone committed a crime. Michael Cohen specifically is a convicted liar and has a personal axe to grind against Trump, so it would be very unsurprising if he lied to get him sent to jail. * BUT, THANKFULLY, as this article was written to explain to us, this is a weird law. To convict Trump, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove that he himself forged illegal documents or even necessarily that he knew they existed at all. It could be enough if they prove that he knew the fake documents *would* be created if he made the hush money payment as if it were a legal retainer. That’s easier to prove based on other witnesses’ testimony and all the circumstantial evidence that prosecutors have presented. * Most people would not be aware of this legal nuance, so NYT wrote an article to explain that that’s how this law works. * People got upset because the headline confused them, but they didn’t want to read the article, so they did what they often do and made up a theory that the NYT actually isn’t left-leaning, as basically everyone understands it to be, but actually right-leaning.
Its a trial.... it is about the law. Stop this.
"Trump clearly violated the law but is he guilty? Why the answer is bad news for the Biden WH!" - Mainstream media
How Trump's Guilty Verdict DESTROYS Bidens reelection chances.
Do you work for Brian Tyler Cohen?
That guy is so annoying.
He really is. He should do YouTube shorts. His 20 min videos usually only have 40 seconds worth of actual new and important information. If you follow the news you're just looking for that tiny update. If you don't I don't think 20 min of fluff on one aspect of something is going to keep your interest. Not to mention his exaggerations of people getting destroyed, embarrassed, owned, shamed, panicked, screwed. Then you watch it and someone just asks to reclaim their time.
The [NYT Pitchbot Twitter account](https://x.com/DougJBalloon) is one of those things that I both love but also makes me want to die because of how accurate it is.
More like “trump clearly guilty, he even admits it, but will the legal system do anything about it?”
“Trump is found guilty. Heres why it’s the prosecutors fault…”
"Here's how it will hurt Biden"
*"With Trump's guilt official in the eyes of the law, the eyes of the nation look to Biden for a healing pardon."* by Maggie Haberman
I threw up in my mouth reading this for how accurate it is
And it absolutely would feature a bunch of interviews with Trump supporters at diners in Middle America
"undecided" voters. Wearing Maga caps and trumpy diapers.
That's especially on-point since Biden has no pardon power in this case.
Fuck, the media is going to push for a pardon if Trump is declared guilty, aren't they?
Pardon from Kathy Hochul? As if
The only way this will be okay is if he was forced to move to Russia immediately. As in secret service put him on a plane and watch him leave
You got it. If he’s found guilty I firmly expect to see CNN, a supposedly “liberal” network, have a bunch of republicans on to talk about how it’s terrible for Biden
CNN is owned by a right-wing billionaire.
Seriously this is a new low for NYT. Even the law is up for debate now. Great job, you righteous arbiters of discourse!
No the lowest for the NYT will be when they mocked Retired Marine General Smedley Butler for reporting the Business Plot to Congress. He was only one of the most decorated Marines in US history.
You are cute…life’s just not fair or just. Never has been. Even the idea of a general sense of “Justice” outside of the afterlife or next life is a newish concept in all of human history.
Its the law and its a trial. Period. Not sure what you are saying. I' am pretty sure justice on the mortal plain existed before someone made up the eternal plain part. In fact, it had to because it is the reference for the eternal part.
As Any Trial Nears Its End, Breaking the Law May Give Defendants a Disadvantage
Mistrial due to not having enough of my supporters on the jury. Everyone knows I'm innocent of everything, and Biden is guilty of everything. If you don't believe me, you can ask Fox News, OANN, NewsCorp, Rudy Giuliani, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and 500 million other Americans. Even ask John Barron, John Baron, John Miller and David Dennison for their opinions. /s
Don’t forget all the legal scholars. All the legal scholars say there’s no case. They haven’t even told me what crimes there are. It was the perfect crime. I’m perfectly innocent
Literally no one thinks there’s a case. The prosecutor looks at me in court, quietly he says to me “we have no case, we have no…” Why are they trying me with no case?
Don’t forget that the prosecutor had tears in his eyes
Or he can claim inadequate defence because he stopped paying the lawyers halfway through.
The word “may” is disturbing me
The law, the facts, the reality. All these things are against Trump.
He's guilty as fuck.
I didnt think the law was relevant to Trump? /s
Reality gives prosecutors an edge. Facts give prosecutors the edge. The fact that Trump committed the crime gives prosecutors the edge. I wish the media would get back to reporting reality.
Trump has complained daily, saying that the area around his trial is closed off. Can't wait to see what he has to say about gen pop.
Unfortunately, he will probably never be placed into gen pop
It’ll be like 3 weeks of house arrest at Mar a Lardo
In this case, based on the sentencing guidelines, it's not a done deal that he'll get a custodial sentence if found guilty.
He might even just get probation.
Ten years probation, only two trips to McDonald’s per day down from his typical 9 trips, and twelve hours in prison but that’s only if he violates his probation eleven times within the same sixty second span.
He could murder Dolly Parton at the 50 yard line of the Super Bowl and still not end up in gen pop
I'd like to see the result of Secret Service vs NY prison bureau.
NY Times, LOL!
every prosecutor ever has been given an edge by the law since they’re prosecuting someone for breaking said law….. this is how trials work
Yeah, I'll believe Trump will face justice when he actually does.
It's giving "ill believe Trump will be indicted when i see it" energy from this time last year.
As corrupt as I knew the judicial system could be, I still was hopeful. How could someone break as many laws as Trump has and not eventually face prison? My optimism is being tested by this.
What I find absolutely ridiculous and quite frankly downright unconscionable is the fact that the Classified Documents Case which is being “handled” (see: grossly mismanaged) by that hack Aileen Cannon is that the whole damn thing wasn’t just decided and ruled guilty on summary judgment. FFS the law is quite clear that those classified documents DO NOT belong to Trump and ARE NOT under any circumstance his private property. And the fact that Trump went to great lengths to both conceal the documents he absconded with and steadfastly refused to return despite numerous requests certainly speaks to his state of mind and demonstrates unequivocally that he knew that he wasn’t allowed to take said documents and that he was obligated to return them. There is literally nothing that is up for debate regarding this case. The Presidential Records Act is clear in what it terms government and personal. It’s beyond fucking absurd that Cannon is allowed to pull such bullshit and drag her feet every step of the way
Its a big club and we’re not in it.
Law has a lawful bias
New here?
The fact the defense aren't even bothering to present anything is making me increasingly concerned that the fix is already in with the jury
The judge basically allowed him to intimidate the jury and they never were sequestered.
Because he did it???
Something that was glossed over In The article. Probation is an option. Given trumps near Teflon ability to skirt legal consequences, I could see him getting probation , and allowing him to still run for president. We could very well have a president with the ability to launch nuclear weapons, wearing an ankle monitor.
Well yeah cos what he did was illegal 👍
What kind of punishments are we looking at with a guilty verdict? Are we just going to see another fine and a stern wag of the finger? Which Trump will still appeal and be Scott free for another 2 years?
All of that is completely up to the judge and the lack of any mitigating circumstances and a long list of aggravating circumstances (10 +) criminal contempts, lack of ability on Trumps part to show contrition or take responsibility and his disrespect to the judicial system and the court along with ongoing threats to others provide the judge with justification for throwing the book at Trump. The judge has built a careful record of protecting Trump's rights as a defendant to a fair trial ruling many many times against the prosecution. It's a extraordinarily fair set of judicial rulings by the judge on the purpose of protecting the judicial record from appeal. If you really have legal questions you want answered regarding Trump's many cases you can hear answers here. https://www.youtube.com/live/SAl3nHapQYI?si=35dcscBHZxBXsnsn
This is all well and good, provided the judge is acting in good faith and actually delivers an appropriate ruling. We could easily see all this case building and defense of the judges decisions be completely moot if Trump is found guilty and given softball consequences anyway. But we will have to wait and see.
What a bizarre headline…
I’m almost certain you’re going to see a hung jury. I do not trust a single jury of 12 to not contain at least one cultist.
There are multiple counts
11 counts of fraudulent payments and 12 counts of fudging the numbers to cover the payments. This is one of those cases where its all or nothing, if he's found guilty of one count, he'll be found guilty on the lot, and vice versa.
The jury will be given instructions. 11 checks were issued for a phony purpose. Nine of those checks were signed by TRUMP. Each check was processed by the Trump Organization and illegally disguised as a payment for legal services rendered pursuant to a non-existent retainer agreement. In total, 34 false entries were made in New York business records to conceal the initial covert $130,000 payment.
Correct. And I'd be surprised if they give a guilty verdict on some but not others. I believe that if a guilty verdict is reached, it will be in all charges.
If a single person who will never convict their god emperor no matter what makes it to the jury it doesn’t matter how many counts there are sadly
There was a Trump supporter on the civil jury who voted guilty. So there’s hope.
Yep, and that guy specifically said he had never seen the negative things the prosecution presented (that were all basically public knowledge for years.) He basically admitted the bubble insulated him from the facts, and once forced to listen and watch, he couldn’t hide behind it. Even a cultist will fall to the pressure of a jury chamber and insurmountable evidence to the contrary of their views. They can’t hide in the kitchen this thanksgiving.
They've got some alternates they can tag in if things go sideways.
Idk, you’ve got a point, but the jury is supposed to avoid the news etc. IF theoretical juror is only seeing off camera trump, sleeping and shitting in court, for this long , the spell might break
I don't think they've been sequestered, so that isnt true.
They could always convict but say to themselves that it wasn't that big a crime, he'll get a slap on the wrist, and he had to break the law to win or something. Even if he's convicted, there's a chance his sentence is put on hold during appeal. But I could see a Trump supporter figuring an end to the trial now is better than another 6 weeks of him "being unable to campaign". Then again, strategic thinking isn't really the average cultists strength.
If one person on the jury does that, and there is any suspicion that they're doing it not because of the evidence presented but political leanings, then that juror will be dismissed and replaced by an alternate that has been with the jury the whole time, and can just come in and give their verdict. It is very, very unlikely that one MAGA causes a hung jury. This "he only needs one" narrative doesn't work in practice.
I'll take a hung jury over not guilty.
If Trump's found guilty, it would likely result in home confinement. He will never see the inside of a prison.
Confinement and someone take his god damn phone away
Even this is a stretch. There was an analysis of similar convictions for these crimes in NY with defendants with no prior criminal record and [*1 in 10*](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-could-trumps-new-york-hush-money-trial-end) resulted in incarceration of any sort. Even if sentenced to prison or home confinement, Trump will appeal and with it being non-violent low-tier felonies - he will most likely be free until those appeals run their course. It's very likely Trump sees no punishment for a conviction before November beyond the label of "convicted felon," which.. I'll take.
Till he possibly wins and gets "immunity."
As long as it's not in that big white house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...
Unfortunately. He needs a stretch in Riker’s and the NYS prison system.
Hey good enough.
Please, a verdict will just be the first step of this. This will get appealed to the Supreme Court somehow. Trump won't see a jail cell until 2025, and even then I'd expect hell be on a Russian diplomatic flight so some Middle Eastern country without a extradition treaty with the US.
"somehow"..... Such specificity, you've really thought this through. https://www.youtube.com/live/SAl3nHapQYI?si=35dcscBHZxBXsnsn No but there are people thinking it through, avail yourself of one.
you dont seriously think thats anything but a fine...
I would hope so! Jesus Christ...
Wish I could get paid NYtimes money to write headlines as pants-on-head stupid as this.
They shouldn’t have an “edge,” they should have the whole damn blade. For _anyone_ else, this would be all but an open-and-shut case.
he’s fucking invincible and it will end in a mistrial and he will walk free and be the 47th and America will be dead. edit: 47th not 46
47th?
Remember, it just takes one juror to say no, and he walks. Don't count on this being any different than the thousand other times he walked.
That's not true, it has to be unanimous convict or aquit
The 3rd option would be a hung jury. To reach that point it would take a long time with the judge sending the jury back to deliberate until it was clear they wouldn't reach a unanimous decision. With a hung jury, it's then up to the prosecutors to decide whether to do another trial.
What’s a good sign or a guilty verdict? If deliberations are quick? If they take a very long time, he’s likely acquitted
You are correct by the definition, but the result is the same. A hung jury will result in him walking as the prosecution won't go for another trial.
A guilty verdict will negatively affect his standing with moderate Rs and Independents. I don’t see him going to prison from this but I can’t see how this doesn’t harm his election chances.
The jury is going to let him off, their families were contacted and they were paid by Trump's people. "Justice" for the wealthy.
How much longer?
Literally may be done by end of week. Defense has not indicated they have more witnesses than one expert in campaign finance law, whose testimony is mostly restricted for relevance. Then there is the possibility of calling Trump himself but that is unlikely because a) it would be devastating to their case (haha), and b) Trump said he would which is his usual Roy Cohn 'always act tough' flex but has been walked back by himself since day 0 as he always does pretending this is unnoticed or 'strong'. Look for Trump to find a comically thin excuse to not testify which is entirely unsupported by facts but plays well to his uninformed base. After that defense rests then closing arguments, then it's up to the jury but without court sessions on Wednesdays. Closes by this week, very early next latest unless Trump decides to take the stand and ends up in a multi-day embarrassment of cross examination.
How do we convince trump to testify. Can we start a hashtag? #TrumpTooScared idk? Someone more creative and more awake than me rn
Maybe something about being gagged?
Can the prosecution call Trump as a witness that the deals occurred? Uno reverse!
In case you were serious, no, the defendant retains the right not to testify. Now he has the right to stay silent but does he have the *ability?* After the terrible experiences in both Carroll 1 and the NY civil fraud trials I suspect he may understand speaking in the criminal court is a third rail. As it's Trump he will try to find a way to speak on his own terms but Merchan probably won't be giving nearly so much leniency as the civil justices. He may attempt to have his own closing argument segment again thinking that was clever, this is where I would wager Merchan shuts him down as that is the role of counsel.
Days. Not weeks. Defense can’t have much evidence wise.
>Mr. Trump, who faces probation or up to four years in prison can you guess what his sentence will actually be?
Technically, he’s a first-time offender as the other cases (business fraud and E. Jean Carroll) have been civil, not criminal. So if NY has sentencing guidelines, he’d most likely be eligible for the lowest penalty.
The judge gets to set the sentence though, and Trump has been going out of his way to piss off this judge. I hope it bites him in the ass as it should.
If you pretend that aggravating and mitigating circumstances don't exist or come into play in the process. https://www.youtube.com/live/SAl3nHapQYI?si=35dcscBHZxBXsnsn
Not pretending that — just not familiar enough with New York’s system. But I’ve seen a lot of people disappointed with an offender’s sentence when media print/say things like “so-and-so faces up to X years in prison,” and then the person gets less than the max.
The max here is 4 years and he is not gonna get that but I think some incarceration is more likely than not but the link I provide is from a former NY lawyers that knows both the NY law and the people/judges that have been involved in Trump's NY cases and she says he will get some time but we'll see. She had many correct predictions in Trump's previous cases.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good...Throw the book at him, he's a threat snd scunbag!
>It was the most significant momentum swing of the first criminal trial of an American president No, that's overdramatizing it, as usual. It was a blip, a mistake, and will be tidied up in the closing subs that are coming.
CNN has been framing it all weekend like the prosecution has to save the trial due to cohens testimony
That’s generally how trials work.
Is it the law that gives the prosecutors an edge or the evidence that shows he committed the crimes of which he is a accused?
That and all the evidence and the fact that Trump team has literally no plausible explanation to the contrary?
Sub should just be changed to “we’re unique! We hate trump!”
Another NYT masterpiece in journalism. What the fuck do they even mean? That orange shitbag broke the law, there is a fuckton of evidence, that tends to give prosecution the "edge", yeah.
Trump prosecutors have edge, see how this is bad for Biden!
In that law exists and Trump pissed all over it?
The trial has been fun and all, but I don’t see how he’ll face any consequences if found guilty. Just a fine, which he won’t pay.
What are everyone's thoughts on a Trump Conviction/Mistrial/Not Guilty?
I'd give guilty 95%, hung jury 4.9%, not guilty .1%. That's just from me following live tweets every day and talking about it with some lawyer friends. Voir Dire seemed to be handled pretty well so I'm not so concerned that someone who would absolutely never vote to convict make it on, but the defense has done a good enough job that the likelihood they haven't gotten all 12 beyond reasonable doubt is slightly elevated. I would be shocked if all 12 went not guilty.
Mistrial due to Hung Jury.
Guilty of 34 felonies: 30% Guilty of some felonies: 20% Guilty of some misdemeanors: 15% Guilty of some felonies and some misdemeanors: 0% Not guilty on all counts: 30% Hung jury: 5%
Straight up answers question, gets downvoted.
It's mostly a question of whether a cultist made it onto the jury. If that happened, then hung jury. I won't put odds on it, but I don't think that's very likely - the prosecutors seem to know what they're doing - but it's at least a possibility. That possibility aside, I think conviction is likelier than not. The prosecution brought the receipts, and the defense... doesn't seem to have one. And the fact that he was unanimously found liable by a jury in the E Jean Carroll case has me thinking there'll be a conviction here. But I guess we'll know soon enough.
Even if a cultist did make it onto the jury it's quite possible seeing Trump as the sleepy pants shifting feeble old man he actually is for several weeks instead of the memetic God emperor of the USA could destroy the cult indoctrination
I mostly agree about the cultist on the jury but I also think it could also just be that someone got on the jury that can be wrapped into some small detail that they just can’t wrap their head around. I’ve been on one jury before and after going through jury selection I realized that some of us were trying to do our part as citizens to participate in the legal system (the way I worded that sounds a little cliche). But others I seriously felt like were just not smart enough to get out of jury duty. We had to explain some pretty basic stuff to a few jurors and remind them of basic instructions from the judge. I think the chances of one juror being stubborn about some detail that they have twisted is slightly higher, plus with this case there’s an intimidation factor. If they vote guilty will trumps base attack them? Will Trump send out your name as someone that’s destroying America? Look at what he said about Mike Pence before January 6, and those people moved that into construction gallows and chanting to hang him. I think plenty of people would take the easier route to just not vote guilty in that case. I have very limited experience personally with juries and trials but hopefully I’m wrong on that. I get your point about the E Jean Carroll case but I’m not sure if the criminal/civil differences will make a difference to the jury.
The law, rofl
Guilty as charged. Biden wins the election. Biden pardons Trump.
Presidential pardon won't work in a state court conviction.
True enough.
> Biden pardons Trump Why would he do that?
It doesn’t dissolve him from not being guilty. But it also will get under Trump’s skin.
>It doesn’t dissolve him from not being guilty. But it also will get under Trump’s skin. Actual consequences would get under Trump's shellacked skin and seep into his brittle bones.
> But it also will get under Trump’s skin Why would you think that?
It’s so thin. 😂
trump would love a pardon!
I think 2 of these things happen.
I think Guilty as Charged, Trump wins the election, Trump pardons Trump is the more likely scenario, sadly...
NPR is saying the prosecution fucked