NY: Convicted Felon Donald Trump!

[Yoda]

He’s now threatening “death and destruction” to the United States and its people if he’s charged with a crime.

Shame on every single Trump voter.

Sure sounds like a terrorist to me. I believe I heard Saddam use the exact same threat several times.

[Yoda]

Obviously a huge victory for the rule of law and democracy. Presidents should not get passes to run their campaigns and administrations like crime syndicates like trump did.

Republicans ranting and raving about this are something else. They're really out to lunch. trump's actions leading up to and on January 6th mean he should have been in chains years ago. The fact that he has been free all this time is a deadly serious blight on our justice system.

[Yoda]

Idk why people think this would ensure Trump wins the GOP nomination…if a wave of indictments from this, GA, etc, keep dropping I really do think a plurality of Republican voters will defect to Desantis, Scott, or Pence.

My personal opinion on this - and I've said it many times before - is that the indictment(s) absolutely helps trump. Republican base voters have shown time and again that they are very receptive to the persecution/martyrdom angle from their politicians, especially when it's trump. trump will play his base like a fiddle over this. Also, none of trump's opponents in the primary are going to try to use this against him b/c they are cowards, so when is it going to hurt him? Republicans have shown time and again they don't care about people breaking the law when those people are republicans.

[Yoda]

https://twitter.com/jackholmes0/status/1641581598507245568

Holy sh**t.....were we expecting this many?

[Yoda]

Top minds of Atlas

This story died off quick as can be. 

Might’ve been a fundraising ploy. Doesn’t seem this is happening.

Just as I suspect. Trump will never be arrested. He’ll never be charged. It’s been fantasy talk since 2016

The grand jury keeps getting more an more incompetent, yet an indictment is supposed to "hurt" him.

Don't get your hopes up for next week either.

If I had to bet money, I don't think Trump will be indicted. I'll believe it when I see it. Its been 8 years of investigations.

I'll admit, I was wrong. Holy cow was I wrong. I still don't think Trump will ever see the inside of a cell but maybe I'm wrong again.

Has he ever been charged criminally before? This isn't like the 100,000 times he's been sued for skipping out on paying his bills. This is a felony we're talking about. I HIGHLY doubt any DA would bring charges against a former president unless the evidence was there.

[Yoda]

The number of people who still have a shiftable opinion of Trump or whose minds are set but might not turn out to vote is so small, I have a hard time seeing this have a huge political impact in the general. BUT, one group I really think this screws over is generic down-ballot R incumbents who will now have to answer to the Trump crazies about why they didn't "do something" to stop this and who probably won't get to see any sort of coattails even in a hypothetical 2024 Trump mega-landslide.

Not just that. Those same Republicans will also have to defend belonging to a party that is now publicly on the record as utterly opposed to rule of law.

There have yet been no charges released. None of those commenting know what Donald Trump is being indicted for. And yet, the GOP is clear that whatever the charges might be, they are opposed to them. Not because Mr. Trump is innocent - no, none of them are claiming that - but that the very idea of holding a powerful man to account is something they find unconscionable.

From Trump's supposed opponents like Pence and DeSantis, to party leadership like Speaker McCarthy and RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel, to the nuttiest of cultists they all agree on one thing: it is unacceptable to hold a Republican accountable under the law.

Republicans are the party of tyranny. No one should ever pretend otherwise again.

Very well said. "It's an outrage!" is what I've been hearing over and over from republicans. Why is it an outrage? Bogus charges? We don't know what they are yet. Lack of evidence? We haven't seen the evidence. It's an "outrage" to republicans b/c their cult leader looks likely to suffer legal consequences for breaking the law. The law is something the poors are held to, not rich, white, entitled male republicans!

[Yoda]

I know it’s unconventional thinking but I don’t see this helping Trump’s campaign.

Sure, the cult will stick with him but swingy voters will abandon him even more. Maybe he wins the primary but this kills his chances in the general.

I hope I’m right anyway.

I think this is what most people mean when they say they think it will help trump, in that it will help him in the primary. At least I know that's what I mean. The victimhood/persecution complex on the right is just too strong and trump plays to it too well. But like you said, it hurts him in the general. The trial might not be over by Nov '24, but we'll almost certainly have heard damning testimony/evidence against trump by then. Not to mention he is likely to have been indicted 2-3 more times by then.

[Yoda]

DOJ reportedly 'irritated' by Manhattan DA's decision to indict Trump because they believe hush money charges are weak and could damage more serious Georgia electoral fraud and January 6 probes'


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11922971/Justice-Department-irritated-Manhattan-DAs-indictment-Donald-Trump.html

The story wouldn't surprise me if true. But it's not their call. Maybe they shouldn't have avoided taking a hard look at Trump's actions on/around J6 for a year, and then they could have gone first here.

This, and also it's pretty well know that if trump does end up getting indicted in GA, republicans - in a stunning act of corruption-in-waiting- are going to use their new power to replace the local prosecutor to protect him from the charges. For all the republican foaming at the mouth over the supposed "unconstitutional" and "corrupt" indictment, there's nothing more corrupt than the law they passed in GA in order to protect their criminal leader.

[Yoda]

The legal standard is not whether the expense was meant to influence the campaign. The legal standard is whether the expense was created by the campaign and would have been objectively paid irrespective of the campaign. You might want a different standard (eg - “I don’t care about the suit analogy”), but what you want isn’t a consideration

The legal standard is would the payment have been made but for the campaign. To me it is clear it would not have been. That it was intended to influence the campaign is part of why I conclude that. The other part of why I conclude that is he turned he down before.

So if the $130k payment is, as you claim, a campaign finance contribution, then would Trump have been within his rights to use campaign donor funds to issue the payment (as opposed to his personal funds)? That means money that was given to him by his supporters and fundraisers - do you think Trump could have legally used that money to pay the $130k?

I'm not sure the payment is legal at all without reporting it somewhere, even if there was no campaign. For example, you can't give somebody more than $16,000 in a year as a gift without reporting it to the IRS. There could been multiple laws he's violated here. So not an expert on this, but no I don't think he could have paid it out of campaign donor funds and done no reporting on the payment.

This is an extremely good point. Putting aside the campaign expense vs. not campaign expense argument for a moment, trump clearly lied about and attempted to conceal what these funds were for, and who they were paid by, by fraudulently listing them as legal fees and having his attorney, Michael Cohen, pay them for him while he reimbursed him. It's pretty easy to see this being viewed as fraud at a minimum.

[Yoda]

The legal standard is not whether the expense was meant to influence the campaign. The legal standard is whether the expense was created by the campaign and would have been objectively paid irrespective of the campaign. You might want a different standard (eg - “I don’t care about the suit analogy”), but what you want isn’t a consideration

The legal standard is would the payment have been made but for the campaign. To me it is clear it would not have been. That it was intended to influence the campaign is part of why I conclude that. The other part of why I conclude that is he turned he down before.

So if the $130k payment is, as you claim, a campaign finance contribution, then would Trump have been within his rights to use campaign donor funds to issue the payment (as opposed to his personal funds)? That means money that was given to him by his supporters and fundraisers - do you think Trump could have legally used that money to pay the $130k?

I'm not sure the payment is legal at all without reporting it somewhere, even if there was no campaign. For example, you can't give somebody more than $16,000 in a year as a gift without reporting it to the IRS. There could been multiple laws he's violated here. So not an expert on this, but no I don't think he could have paid it out of campaign donor funds and done no reporting on the payment.

This is an extremely good point. Putting aside the campaign expense vs. not campaign expense argument for a moment, trump clearly lied about and attempted to conceal what these funds were for, and who they were paid by, by fraudulently listing them as legal fees and having his attorney, Michael Cohen, pay them for him while he reimbursed him. It's pretty easy to see this being viewed as fraud at a minimum.

They've been investigating the case for 5-6 years, his records have been put under a microscope (and Trump Organization has already been subject to civil & criminal litigation), legal pundits have strained their heads for years analyzing what charges he may or may not have committed

If it's sooo easy to see this as fraud "at a minimum" (as you are now claiming), there would have been some indications of those charges by now. Yet no one is talking about those sort of charges (except you); no one has reported that the IRS or NYS Department of Taxation is / was investigating him . Apparently, you know more than anyone, including the experts, about tax and fraud laws

You really seem to be struggling with the concept that while trump was President he was essentially immune from prosecution b/c of that (ridiculous) DOJ memo, despite the fact that numerous posters have explained that to you in this thread. 5-6 years ago, trump was President. This isn't hard.

In case you weren't aware, the trump organization was just recently found guilty in a court of law of multiple counts of tax fraud, which you rather bizarrely left of your reply. The CFO even made a plea deal and testified. It was pretty big in the news and pretty impossible to miss unless you only watch Fox Entertainment. Who heads the trump organization? Hmm, I wonder.....

[Yoda]

All 34 of the charges are felonies.....wow.

[Yoda]

Do we have any idea if the timing of events for today?

I just know the official time for trump's indictment is 2:15 and that he will not be arrested, incarcerated or get a mug shot. Hopefully a gag order though to spare us months of borderline threats on Bragg' life.

[Yoda]

He'll sweep the primaries now

Gooooood.....everything is proceeding exactly as I have foreseen it.

[Yoda]

My aunt compared Trump to Nelson Mandela in case you’re still wondering how octogenarians think.

I'd say it only shows, if it shows anything, how your aunt thinks. I'm sure I've made some quirky comparisons, but I'm not going to claim that they are representative of all 20-somethings.

Yeah, one person is not representative of a whole generation.  Counterexample to the OP: my mother lived into her 80s and was a staunch Republican her whole life, but she despised Donald Trump.  She voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, while voting straight R downballot.  (Her 2020 vote was both pro-Biden and anti-Trump; she quite liked Biden, as did many of the other residents in her assisted living home.)

Yep, exactly. Another one: My dad is 85 and he voted for Obama in 2008 & 2012 after a lifetime of being a Republican (whereas I, in my 20s, voted for McCain and Gary Johnson lol). He primaried for Bernie in 2016 (and voted for Hillary) and has been a hard-core Democrat in these last few years. He particularly hates Trump, too.

Wow, this describes my dad to a T.

[Yoda]

If Trump even spends one day in prison for any of his crimes, then it would be one of the greatest things to happen in American history.

Hopefully, he serves at the very least a year in prison.

I still don't see Trump serving even one day in federal prison, even with a Democratic president. The pressure the latter will be under to pardon, let alone commute, Trump for the supposed "good of the country" would be enormous and I definitely don't see a centrist like Biden withstanding it. It's just like with the former Confederate leaders and Nixon.

This is silly. What pressure? From MAGA land? Biden would do no such thing, under any circumstances.

[Yoda]

The fact that this was allowed - in and of itself - is still insane to me

https://twitter.com/DEADLINE/status/1779901490594775368

IANAL, but generally aren't prosecutors allowed to establish a defendant's pattern of conduct and their history of lying? Are trump's various other actions to manipulate the press, suppress true stories and promote fake ones not relevant to his character and his willingness to commit crimes?

[Yoda]

https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1779909029034098887

This still is awful precedent. You're still saying, I'll be lenient with you for specific reasons that no normal person gets the benefit of the doubt from.

You can't say it's okay to jail him later but not now for doing the same exact thing. He's been warned *many* times about the consequences of violating the gag order.

The bottom line is he just once again gets provisions that no normal person would get.

I strongly agree, but I can see fines working if they make them proportionately high to trump's reported wealth. These fines should be starting out at like $50k per violation, 1k is a joke. Next violation is $250, $1 million after, $5 million, $10 million. Payment due immediately or else his properties start being seized. He will shut his mouth and his posts up if the consequence is strong enough, it's that simple.

[Yoda]

https://twitter.com/aweissmann_/status/1780266112036331671https://twitter.com/bradmossesq/status/1780269764591391226

Cool cool so just take the f*****g stand, put your hand on the Bible and testify in these exact words then.

[Yoda]

Seven jurors selected.

Not too bad for Trump. One nurse, one teacher (probably both anti-Trump), one who had no clue how long the trial will last (probably bad for Trump, could be easily swayed), two lawyers (a lifeline for Trump, would not be convinced by weak evidence), one older IT training consultant who prioritizes his family (probably good for Trump and his defense that he paid the hush money to protect his family) and the foreman who is probably anti-Trump.

Trump only needs one stealth MAGA juror. So far, he didn't get that, but he got a decent jury.

Of course it's impossible to be sure without their identities, but I REALLY do not see two of the jurors being lawyers helping trump. Like at all. I think any lawyer worth his/her weight in spit is going get incredibly pissed off at trump's antics in and out of the courtroom and the defense's apparent character assassination of Cohen strategy. I also see lawyers scoffing at the idea that writing a check to a porn star you had an affair with disguised as a retainer/legal fee is in any way an "official act of the office of the President."

[Yoda]

I think some of you fail to understand a core principle of the jury system: jurors are allowed to have opinions about people involved in the case -- whether it's the defendant, the defense lawyers, the prosecutors, the judge, the arresting officer, or the person running the security checkpoint at the courthouse entrance.  Jurors are supposed to (and they swear to, at least in the jury oath in some jurisdictions) put aside any such opinions and reach a verdict solely on the evidence presented.  Their opinions get left outside on the courthouse steps.  

Most people, I think, are pretty good at this.  Some are not.  If a juror feels they cannot put aside their opinions, then they should be excused -- which is something that is routinely asked in jury questioning.  If the prosecutors or defense believe that a juror can't be fair for some reason, they can move to have the juror excused for cause; failing that, they can use one of their peremptory strikes if they just have a bad feeling about a particular juror.  But simply having an opinion about the defendant -- whether favorable or unfavorable -- or a political leaning is not sufficient cause by itself to remove them; there needs to be some other indication that they can't render a fair verdict.

If you think it's impossible to find a fair jury even for a famous defendant, then you really don't believe in the jury system (and, I suspect, you don't have much faith in people at all).  Believing that jurors shouldn't have opinions or political leanings is as misguided and unrealistic as believing that police officers, judges, or prosecutors shouldn't either.  Their opinions don't matter as long as they can do their job fairly.  Most of them do, and those that don't should be removed from their jobs.  Being a juror is just another job (a short-term, low-paying one) in the same category.

If that is so, then let's move the trial to a 50-50 jurisdiction somewhere upstate.
The opinions of jurors don't matter as long as they can do their job fairly.

Or better yet, let's move the trial to rural Texas.

The trial is being held in NY b/c the crimes trump is charged with were allegedly committed there. That's how trials work, since you clearly don't know - you're charged in the venue where the alleged crime took place. Holding the trial in rural Texas would make no more sense than holding it in the Vatican. trump is not entitled to more of his voters potentially being on a jury. No criminal defendant is.

If you're pissy about this fact, the solution is for your Cheeto cult leader to stop committing crimes in jurisdictions full of people who despise him. Go pay a porn star to sleep with him while his wife is pregnant, tell a local publisher of a rag tabloid to buy the story from said lady and not run it to cover it up b/c 1) it looks bad for him and 2) it's a campaign expense he's trying to hide, and then write a check to his lawyer so he can turn around pay off the porn star with that exact amount (falsification of records), and do it all in West Texas. Voila, you'll have his trial there.

Edit: come to think of it, the MAGA local prosecutor would not even charge the crime, if it's even a felony in Texas to begin with, out of loyalty to trump. Which is, of course, the real reason you want rural Texas to be the jury pool. You want nothing but people who place loyalty to trump above the law.

[Yoda]

Are they gonna be sequestered. I imagine they will be

Especially given the fire issue, I hope so.

That is a clear signal not to mess around or take any chances with this, if there was any doubt before.

I strongly disagree that jury duty should essentially be turned into a jail sentence and you can simply justify it by saying it's for their own protection simply b/c some psycho set himself on fire. From what I saw on the news the jurors are being escorted by police, which seems enough to me. Sequestration is no small thing, especially if you have a family. Give them plenty of police protection, and address any and all security concerns they have, absolutely.

[Yoda]

I didn't even realize until like last week that trump and his defense lawyers are actually alleging that the whole Stormy Daniels story is a lie! That he never even had sex with her and the whole thing is made up. Lmao. Good luck explaining why you paid someone that amount of money for a completely fabricated story.

[Yoda]

Trump is guaranteed to perjure himself multiple times, so not testifying is strategically the best move for him.

If he lies, yeh. If he tells the truth, he incriminates himself. All this press coverage acting as if there was ever a chance in hell he would testify is silly. He's a coward. He's never, ever, ever going to testify.

[Yoda]

Bragg has no case, dismiss it. I hate to defend Trump but I am with him in this case.

Wtf are you talking about? A casual observer of the coverage of the trial knows that the prosecution has laid out irrefutable evidence proving each of the charges against trump. They've proven trump was aware of the scheme to cover up the payments to Daniels and directed Cohen to do so personally, they've proven trump intentionally falsified business records, they've proven he personally signed the check to reimburse Cohen, they've proven he knew the money was not for attorney's fees, they've proven he orchestrated the coverup with the intent to conceal the affair from the American public before the '16 election, and they've proven that trump knew about both Daniels and McDougal's stories potentially coming out before the election (from at least three witnesses - Hope Hicks, Cohen and David Pecker) and that he personally thanked Pecker for "his work on the campaign."

You'd have to be a world class idiot to look at all the facts in this case and think that Bragg has no case.

[Yoda]

I am surprised they didn't get copies of the judge's instructions.  Is that a New York state practice?  In Georgia, we got printed copies of the instructions for each juror, so we could refer to them during deliberation.

Yeah in PA at least we got one copy (for the foreman) of basically everything that we needed - counts, definitions, etc. Basically all of the info because the judge wasn't going to repeat basically anything else.

This was basically my experience when I was on a jury in Ohio as well. Detailed definitions of the charges, a "roadmap" if you will of how we were to go about deciding innocence or guilt on each count, etc. Also all the evidence we saw at trial was given to us to look at/watch as much as we needed to in the juror room.