Indecision 2024

[bolo]

Seems like a long wait. On the other hand, it gives plenty of time for him to piss off the judge even more, so that's nice.

[dyqik]

I wonder if his other cases might suddenly start moving so that the GOP can be rid of him before the convention?

[dyqik]

Also, Trump can't vote for himself now.

ETA: bah, he could if he's not in prison, as Florida bases rules for preventing felons from voting based on the rules in the state they were convicted in.

[monkey]

"I am a very innocent man."

https://youtu.be/lr_vl62JblQ

[Grumble]

Well isn’t this nice news to turn on my phone to.

[IvanV]

I've not seen anyone suggest he was likely to get a custodial sentence for this.

Doubtless there will be an attempt to try and appeal it, and even if he doesn't get leave to appeal, as long as some action is live, it isn't finished, and legal cases are never finished until they are finished. Though I think this might be one of the ones he can't make go away by being president.

He rants about a partisan legal system. But what did he do about that when in power? Make it worse. What a hypocritical complaint.

[lpm]

He might well get a prison sentence. 25% chance maybe.

Election interference is a serious crime and Merchan has stressed its seriousness.

[dyqik]

On the sentencing, Trump doesn't have former convictions, but he does have multiple civil judgements against him for fraud (Trump University, Trump Org civil fraud trial), which certainly establish a pattern of behavior adjacent to business records falsification. And he has multiple civil liabilities for defamation, and a civil jury decision that he committed sexual assault.

I don't know if those would be taken into account in sentencing though (the libel cases being the least likely, but still relevant because of the denying/covering up embarrassing sexual stories around the election time).

These were excluded from the trial, but might be allowed to be considered in the sentencing, which can only increase the chances of jail.

There's also the chance that he goes off the rails before sentencing, including during the first debate, and makes things worse for himself.

[dyqik]

I guess you could even make the case that the rulings against his unconstitutional policies as president, his statements about overturning the Constitution, and his violations in occupying Mar-a-Lago as his residence establish him as a scofflaw who needs a severe sentence to shock him into obeying the law.

[Woodchopper]

Article written before the conviction:

A review of thousands of cases in New York that charged the same felony suggests something striking: If Mr. Trump is found guilty, incarceration is an actual possibility. It’s not certain, of course, but it is plausible.

Comparable cases. The first factor is the base line against which judges measure all sentences: how other defendants have been treated for similar offenses. My research encompassed almost 10,000 cases of felony falsifying business records that have been prosecuted across the state of New York since 2015. Over a similar period, the Manhattan D.A. has charged over 400 of these cases. In roughly the first year of Mr. Bragg’s tenure, his team alone filed 166 felony counts for falsifying business records against 34 people or companies.

Contrary to claims that there will be no sentence of incarceration for falsifying business records, when a felony conviction involves serious misconduct, defendants can be sentenced to some prison time. My analysis of the most recent data indicates that approximately one in 10 cases in which the most serious charge at arraignment is falsifying business records in the first degree and in which the court ultimately imposes a sentence, results in a term of imprisonment.

To be clear, these cases generally differ from Mr. Trump’s case in one important respect: They typically involve additional charges besides just falsifying records. That clearly complicates what we might expect if Mr. Trump is convicted.

Nevertheless, there are many previous cases involving falsifying business records along with other charges where the conduct was less serious than is alleged against Mr. Trump and prison time was imposed. For instance, Richard Luthmann was accused of attempting to deceive voters — in his case, impersonating New York political figures on social media in an attempt to influence campaigns. He pleaded guilty to three counts of falsifying business records in the first degree (as well as to other charges). He received a sentence of incarceration on the felony falsification counts (although the sentence was not solely attributable to the plea).

A defendant in another case was accused of stealing in excess of $50,000 from her employer and, like in this case, falsifying one or more invoices as part of the scheme. She was indicted on a single grand larceny charge and ultimately pleaded guilty to one felony count of business record falsification for a false invoice of just under $10,000. She received 364 days in prison.

To be sure, for a typical first-time offender charged only with run-of-the-mill business record falsification, a prison sentence would be unlikely. On the other hand, Mr. Trump is being prosecuted for 34 counts of conduct that might have changed the course of American history.

Seriousness of the crime. Mr. Bragg alleges that Mr. Trump concealed critical information from voters (paying hush money to suppress an extramarital relationship) that could have harmed his campaign, particularly if it came to light after the revelation of another scandal — the “Access Hollywood” tape. If proved, that could be seen not just as unfortunate personal judgment but also, as Justice Juan Merchan has described it, an attempt “to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election.”

History and character. To date, Mr. Trump has been unrepentant about the events alleged in this case. There is every reason to believe that will not change even if he is convicted, and lack of remorse is a negative at sentencing. Justice Merchan’s evaluation of Mr. Trump’s history and character may also be informed by the other judgments against him, including Justice Arthur Engoron’s ruling that Mr. Trump engaged in repeated and persistent business fraud, a jury finding that he sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll and a related defamation verdict by a second jury.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/opin ... 56EEE28EC3

[IvanV]

A BBC piece suggests that there were material weaknesses in the case that the defence failed to exploit, most importantly on the demonstration of knowledge or intent by Trump of the record falsification. Part of the reason for failing to add significant doubt might be Trump himself, as you can't take certain approaches without the client's approval and cooperation. An academic suggests that ultimately it was a highly relevant factor that the case was in New York, where the judiciary made best endeavours to get a conviction and could select a jury that made it possible. We see the converse of that with the documents case in Florida, which looks like a pretty simple and strong case, but the judge herself has done her best to see it kicked into the long grass. As I said in a recent post, on one thing Trump is right, justice is partisan in the US.

[Chris Preston]

When such positions are partisan appointments, there is a real danger that justice will become partisan. The Federalist Society has managed to weaponise this leaning by giving Trump lists of its members for him to appoint.

One of the takes I made from the evidence I read about in the case was how stingy Trump is with his money on anyone except himself. The jury may have seen what I saw and made the same conclusions. It would then be hard to convince them that Trump was signing cheques for Cohen without really knowing what the money was used for. The fact that this line of argument wasn't tried is surely because Trump felt it would make him look week.

[dyqik]

Most importantly, it wasn't taken because it would involve Trump going on the stand, and likely perjuring himself, being found in contempt, and/or being made to look weak and feeble in court, as well as out of control of his personal staff (Cohen).

[IvanV]

It creases me up to imagine Trump swearing in court to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That's just what he'd give them.

[dyqik]

It creases me up to imagine Trump swearing in court to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That's just what he'd give them.

The first two, quite possibly. The latter, definitely not

[Stranger Mouse]

It creases me up to imagine Trump swearing in court to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That's just what he'd give them.

The first two, quite possibly. The latter, definitely not

Trump should stick to Clash covers

https://x.com/mjfree/status/1796919332049445005?s=61

[IvanV]

To add to the "steal", the new orthodoxy you have to explicitly and vocally subscribe to, to remain active and influential in the Republican party, is that the state apparatus is being used to target Republicans, such as through this rigged political show-trial that has just found Trump guilty in New York. The House Judiciary Committee has even managed set up a Subcommittee on the weaponization of federal government, a feature of the fascist state Trump now says the US has. Reminds me of another hard right political leader - one in eastern Europe - calling his opponents fascists.

[bjn]

It’s all projection. What they accuse Biden of doing is exactly what they want to do and will do given the chance.

[dyqik]

It’s all projection. What they accuse Biden of doing is exactly what they want to do and will do given the chance.

And what they openly say they will do. Trump has called for deportation squads, using the Dept. of Justice to target liberals, and reposted a video that said that they were "going to get rid of liberals".

[bjn]

Yep. They are saying the quiet part out loud now and it’s like no one is really paying much attention.

[Stranger Mouse]

More indictments for Trump allies in Wisconsin

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 56494.html

[Chris Preston]

Steve Bannon now has to go to prison.

I expect he will receive another Presidential pardon when Trump wins in November. This raises an interesting question: How many Presidential pardons should a single person receive?

[Stranger Mouse]

Steve Bannon now has to go to prison.

I expect he will receive another Presidential pardon when Trump wins in November. This raises an interesting question: How many Presidential pardons should a single person receive?

If Trump wins. There is far too high of a chance for my liking but it’s far from certain yet. There’s been a sh.t load of low quality polls that have convinced people Trump is a cert but there does seem to be a backlash agains him now people are being reminded of what a twunt he was

[headshot]

Trump in prison is bad because people will vote for their false memory of him, rather than the obviously mentally unstable lunatic that he shows himself to be.

House arrest or a whopping fine would be best - Trump on the platform is the best way for him to lose moderate votes.

[Stranger Mouse]

Trump in prison is bad because people will vote for their false memory of him, rather than the obviously mentally unstable lunatic that he shows himself to be.

House arrest or a whopping fine would be best - Trump on the platform is the best way for him to lose moderate votes.

Absolutely. In many ways Trump in court as not been as damaging as Trmp being on the campaign trail showing everyone just how much he is degenerating