Trump's "Stormy" next few weeks/months

[TysonLPrice]

I was going to post what is below in the OJ Thread but I think Trump's New York trial on the hush money deserves its own thread.

Wind the clock forward few decades or so and starting Monday is another "Trial of he Century" with Trump. And it will be televised, if that term is relevant anymore. Weeks of day to day coverage. And I think one jury member will "save" Trump.

OJ had 12 but Trump only needs one...

The show starts tomorrow...hang on tight. I'm betting on jury nullification.

https://www.usatoday.com/story

[Steve R Jones]

"Trump's wife got so mad at her husband she packed his bags and told him to get out. As he walked to the door she yelled, 'I hope you die a long, slow, painful death.' He turned around and said, 'So, you want me to stay?'"

[FunkyDexter]

And I think one jury member will "save" Trump.

This is interesting. I always assumed that you needed unanimous consent from the jury for a conviction but I did jury service a couple of months ago and it turns out you don't. Our jury was split 10 to 2 and nobody was moving. The judge advised that that was sufficient and the conviction was recorded.

I honestly don't know if this is a UK only thing, I don't even know if it was a Crown Court only thing, but it might not be as simple as a single juror being able to save him.


Edit> Found a link about it. About half way down the page under the "A Unanimous Verdict" section: "The Judge will always seek a unanimous verdict first. That is a verdict upon which all the jurors are agreed, so either guilty or not guilty. In the early stages of a jury considering its verdict, a Judge cannot accept a majority verdict. If the jury are completely stuck the judge can accept a majority decision."

[TysonLPrice]

CHATGPT:

When a jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict, it is referred to as a "hung jury." In such cases, the judge may issue what's known as an "Allen charge" or a "dynamite charge." This is a set of instructions given by the judge to encourage the jurors to continue deliberating and to try to reach a verdict. The goal is to ensure that the jury has fully explored all possible avenues of agreement before declaring a mistrial.

I can picture it now. To the Trump world the person that hangs the jury will be the hero that saved Trump from illegal persecution. To the anti-Trump world that person will be considered a despicable American that nullified the judicial system for a criminal.

[sapator]

No Jury in Greece. That helps as the rotten government plots will go unpunished easily.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I have no idea how a jury trial can be fair in the case of a Trump trial. Can anybody be impartial about a guy who's whole purpose is division?

[TysonLPrice]

I have no idea how a jury trial can be fair in the case of a Trump trial. Can anybody be impartial about a guy who's whole purpose is division?

I gave some thought to that. I think he has been a criminal most of his adult life. I think he is despicable. But I would listen to the evidence and the law as instructed and would be fair on that account. What would I do to him if it was up to me? I don't feel like getting banned.

[Lord Orwell]

don't don't need concensus for a grand jury, or for a civil case, in the U.S. You do need one to give a conviction of "guilty".

[dilettante]

I have no idea how a jury trial can be fair in the case of a Trump trial. Can anybody be impartial about a guy who's whole purpose is division?

This is a pretty telling remark.

His purpose isn't "division" but instead returning power to the people by wresting it from the hands of the duopolitan cabal. In this Trump has actually proven quite the uniter. Sure, he appeals to some crazies, but that's tiny compared to the normal citizens who merely want to get the country back on track and live their lives and have no other tool by which to accomplish this.

Hyperbole undermines your argument... if there is one there at all. "Division" does not mean "opposes my wonton self-interest at the expense of others" as you imply. Why should people just bow down to further exploitation and abuse?

You need to think outside The Bubble. The guy won office (at least) once, and has a pretty good shot again. All without his hands on the reins of the ballot process. Not much of a "divider."

[Shaggy Hiker]

That's not a telling remark. If you have a very public person, who darn near everybody has an opinion about, how can they ever get an impartial jury? Who is your pool of people? Those who voted for him to be president? those who voted against him to be president? Those who didn't vote at all? There are pretty strong arguments against any of those three groups being on the jury, and yet those three groups make up the total of the population. This kind of issue comes up with any jury trial of a public figure, and no figure is more public than a former president.

You may also be right that the number of crazies are small. The only ones I know who voted for him who are not also on this forum, did so because he explicitly supported their racist views. They supported him because he gave them permission to feel that people who look different from them are inferior.

I realize there are likely others for whom that isn't their reason for supporting him, I just haven't met them in person.

On the other hand, you have made me realize that, at least for me, the country has never been more on track than it is now. I thought I was just a working guy getting by as best he could. You've helped me realize that things have gone pretty darn well for me. For that reason, I've increased donations to the local foodbank and some other groups that you might not approve of. I can't lift all boats, but maybe I can lift a few, a bit.

[FunkyDexter]

returning power to the people by wresting it from the hands of the duopolitan cabal

I just don't see this but you're not the first person I've seen express his attraction in these sort of terms. What power do you think he returned to you? Can you give a concrete example (and try to avoid just generic talking points) because I honestly can't think of one.

In fairness, I can't think of a power that Biden has returned either. I think there are debates about who has run a better economy etc. but I don't see either putting any identifiable power in the hands of the populace.

Hyperbole undermines your argument

...pots and kettles...

[wes4dbt]

and try to avoid just generic talking points

No "cabal's" or "stolen election" will really limit the conversation.

[FunkyDexter]

No "cabal's" or "stolen election" will really limit the conversation.

I tried to find a way of saying without it sounding like a dig but yeah, that's what I was hoping to avoid. I actually think there's quite an interesting conversation to be had around this but it won't work if it devolves to buzz phrases.

When people talk about freedoms and powers I don't think that's what they really mean (at least, most of the time). I think it's really a proxy for "the government are making the decisions that I favour" which isn't quite the same thing. The only real power any of us have in a democracy is the power to put a cross in a box every few years.

The only actual consequential shift in powers I can think of in recent years is the Dobbs decision and I don't think there's any way that can be categorised as giving power to individuals. Quite the opposite, in fact. In consequence it removes a power from an individual. At most it can be seen as giving it to States and Judiciaries.

[FunkyDexter]

I've been dipping in to the early coverage and there's something I don't understand. Maybe someone can close the gap for me because I think I must be missing something.

The prosecution's case so far seems to be hinging on the Trump teams use of the media to bury bad stories about him and push bad stories about his opponents. Don't get me wrong, this is a pretty sleazy practice but I don't see it as criminal and it feels like a stretch to call it "Election Interference" which seems to be the label that's being applied. If bigging yourself up while trashing your opposition is criminal election interference then every single election advert I've ever seen would be covered. I don't remember the Obama ad saying "That Mitt Romney's a really nice guy and I was a bed wetter until I was twelve".

I thought the case was going to revolve around Trump misdeclaring payments to Stormy as "Accountancy" (I was never really clear on the details) but that doesn't seem to be where it's going - I've heard no mention of it.

I'm sure I must be missing something because I don't see how this would have got to court in it's current form. What don't I understand?

[PlausiblyDamp]

I've been dipping in to the early coverage and there's something I don't understand. Maybe someone can close the gap for me because I think I must be missing something.

The prosecution's case so far seems to be hinging on the Trump teams use of the media to bury bad stories about him and push bad stories about his opponents. Don't get me wrong, this is a pretty sleazy practice but I don't see it as criminal and it feels like a stretch to call it "Election Interference" which seems to be the label that's being applied. If bigging yourself up while trashing your opposition is criminal election interference then every single election advert I've ever seen would be covered. I don't remember the Obama ad saying "That Mitt Romney's a really nice guy and I was a bed wetter until I was twelve".

I thought the case was going to revolve around Trump misdeclaring payments to Stormy as "Accountancy" (I was never really clear on the details) but that doesn't seem to be where it's going - I've heard no mention of it.

I'm sure I must be missing something because I don't see how this would have got to court in it's current form. What don't I understand?

As far as I can tell it isn't the actual payments themselves that are the main issue legally (morally that is another matter entirely). The payments were passed off as legal fees and entered into the accounts as such - this effectively becomes fraud from an accounting point of view. Paying someone to be quiet and not reveal a secret isn't a crime, doing this and then claiming the money was used for an entirely different purpose is indeed a crime.

If it was just false accounting then this would be a misdemeanour and not that noteworthy. The fact this false accounting was used to hide payments that would directly influence the election elevates the crime to being a violation of US campaign finance laws and this means it becomes a federal crime.

I suspect the prosecution are going for the federal crime and the actual details will be used to support the charges, rather than the payments themselves being the focus.

[Shaggy Hiker]

That's it. Hush money payments would be nothing more than a misdemeanor. If those hush money payments were made for the purpose of swaying the 2016 election, that would make it a felony. What the Trump team is saying is that the payments were just to hide the allegations from his wife. What the prosecution is saying is that the payments were made to hide the allegations from the voters. Neither side cares whether or not the allegations are true, so that isn't part of the trial. The whole case hinges on why the payments were made.

The "catch and kill" evidence is there to establish that the reason for Trump hiding this information was explicitly due to the election, and not the wife. There is a record of Trump suggesting that they stall till after the election, because then they wouldn't have to pay at all. That alone makes it clear why the payments were made, but it's not strong enough to build a solid case off of. It would be good enough in a lesser case, since it's essentially a confession of guilt, but this is not a lesser case, so the prosecution is building up a wealth of evidence as to why the payments were made.

[TysonLPrice]

Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Falsifying business records is a felony in New York when there is an “intent to defraud” that includes an intent to “commit another crime or to aid or conceal” another crime.

As mentioned "The whole case hinges on why the payments were made."

[FunkyDexter]

OK, I think those answers get me closer to understanding but I'm still a bit unsure on a few areas.

The payments were passed off as legal fees

I had a brain fart and remembered it as "accountancy" (probably because I spent the Tuesday filing my return) but you're right it was "legal fees". I can see how misrepresenting the payments in Trumps accounts is illegal to some level - misdemeanour sounds about right.

Hush money payments would be nothing more than a misdemeanor.

Would they? The activity they were meant to hide was seedy but not illegal so I wouldn't have expected Trump paying Storm to keep it quiet would have been illegal either. I feel like this is probably where I'm missing something but I don't know.

And influencing an election isn't illegal either is it? Otherwise someone really needs to have a word with the Lincoln Project. I guess I'm not clear on where Election Influencing ends and Election Interference begins.

So if it's about establishing that Trump paid Daniels to keep quiet and he did it because he wanted influence the election it feels like we're combining two not illegal things to arrive at a felony. That seems weird. If it's about establishing that he misrepresented the payments in his accounts and he made the payments to influence the election then we're combing a misdemeanour with a non illegal thing to arrive at a felony which... maybe. But he wasn't hiding the payments to influence the election - he was making them to influence the election. That might sound like a pedantic difference but pedantry's what the law thrives on.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I felt that I likely wouldn't write about it all that well, so I went and found somebody else who had laid it out:

In New York, the bare-bones crime of falsifying business records is a misdemeanor. But it becomes a felony if the defendant falsified the records with the intent of furthering a separate underlying crime. Prosecutors have charged Trump with felony-level falsifying business records and have three theories to show a separate underlying crime. The first two theories argue that the Daniels payoff constituted an illegal contribution to Trump’s campaign in violation of federal and state election law, respectively. The third theory alleges that Trump intended to violate New York tax law by inflating and falsely characterizing the reimbursement to Cohen to manipulate its tax consequences.

[TysonLPrice]

The Supreme court is listening now to arguments that Trump has immunity from prosecution for this very thing. Now that we have a republican majority in the court they might well make this all go away. Then if Trump wins he can drop the Federal cases. At this point it looks like Georgia is the real risk. I wonder how he will get out of that, and I assume he will.

But then again, if he does win, there goes democracy as we have known it and Trump will be like Putin. He almost did it last time. Next time he will have everything in place. And half the country will support him.

[Shaggy Hiker]

As far as I can tell, the case before the Supreme Court is about immunity from the charges of conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election, not immunity from the New York case, which was an act committed prior to him being president.

It also looks unlikely that he will win that argument. It sounds like at least five of the justices will reject his claim, and it may be a larger number.

[TysonLPrice]

As far as I can tell, the case before the Supreme Court is about immunity from the charges of conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election, not immunity from the New York case, which was an act committed prior to him being president.

It also looks unlikely that he will win that argument. It sounds like at least five of the justices will reject his claim, and it may be a larger number.

That's right...my bad. But if he does have immunity would that care over to the New York case? I'm leaning more towards they will give some "light" ruling the will benefit Trump in the long run. I don't know what, but they can make the decision, and then find justification for it.

I'm striking out...he wasn't even president then.

But...if the court sends it back done that will give Trump enough of a delay to maybe win the election. That way they can dodge ruling against the guy that put a third of them in there. Anyone that really follows Trump knows you need to at least feign "loyalty" to him. I can give many examples if you doubt that. Does anyone really think that didn't come up in the selection process?

[FunkyDexter]

I went and found somebody else who had laid it out

Aha, thanks. That really clarifies it for me. So these early stages are all about trying to establish an underlying crime. The illegal campaign contribution and inflation of values are all things I hadn't considered.

From the reporting I've caught this morning it sounds like Trump might actually win the immunity hearing. I think that's insane and really bad for democracy regardless of it being for Trump or anyone else. Some of the judges seem to be open to total presidential immunity for "official acts" but the definer for that is simply how the President frames it. Only congress would be able to challenge it but that's meaningless if the act in question was to... ooh... I don't know... dissolve Congress.

I personally think Trump is going to get a drubbing at the next election though so this power, if passed, could well sit with Biden first. Trump supporters might want to consider the implications of that.

[TysonLPrice]

Aha, thanks. That really clarifies it for me. So these early stages are all about trying to establish an underlying crime. The illegal campaign contribution and inflation of values are all things I hadn't considered.

From the reporting I've caught this morning it sounds like Trump might actually win the immunity hearing. I think that's insane and really bad for democracy regardless of it being for Trump or anyone else. Some of the judges seem to be open to total presidential immunity for "official acts" but the definer for that is simply how the President frames it. Only congress would be able to challenge it but that's meaningless if the act in question was to... ooh... I don't know... dissolve Congress.

I personally think Trump is going to get a drubbing at the next election though so this power, if passed, could well sit with Biden first. Trump supporters might want to consider the implications of that.

They way there are red and blue states, the electoral college, and there are actually only around seven "swing" states, Trump has a very good chance of winning. He has never won the popular vote but he did win the presidency. I truly fear for our democracy.

[FunkyDexter]

He has never won the popular vote but he did win the presidency.

Yeah, your electoral college, in particular, seems to be pretty anachronistic. But the we have a similar set up over here so I won't criticise. Democratic systems grow up organically and acquire some pretty weird lumps and bumps along the way. They made sense at the time and never get revisited.

I truly fear for our democracy.

Me too but I'm perhaps a bit less pessimistic. I do think if Trump gets in he will try to end democracy in any meaningful form but:-
1. I don't think he'll win - he was winning in the polls 6 months ago but as you close in on the election all the non-partisan voters are going to start raising their voices and I don't think that will favour Trump, Trump has less than half the funds that Biden's got and he's funnelling them off for his own legal expenses, Biden has already pulled ahead by a nose in the poles and the momentum is going his way and
2. if he does win I'm still not sure how much he'll be able to curtail democracy - I'm a lot less confident of this part, he tried in his first term but only really succeeded in packing the Supreme Court; but then again it feels like him and his coterie are A LOT more prepared this time around, it feels like a coin toss.

[TysonLPrice]

Yeah, your electoral college, in particular, seems to be pretty anachronistic. But the we have a similar set up over here so I won't criticise. Democratic systems grow up organically and acquire some pretty weird lumps and bumps along the way. They made sense at the time and never get revisited.

Me too but I'm perhaps a bit less pessimistic. I do think if Trump gets in he will try to end democracy in any meaningful form but:-
1. I don't think he'll win - he was winning in the polls 6 months ago but as you close in on the election all the non-partisan voters are going to start raising their voices and I don't think that will favour Trump, Trump has less than half the funds that Biden's got and he's funnelling them off for his own legal expenses, Biden has already pulled ahead by a nose in the poles and the momentum is going his way and
2. if he does win I'm still not sure how much he'll be able to curtail democracy - I'm a lot less confident of this part, he tried in his first term but only really succeeded in packing the Supreme Court; but then again it feels like him and his coterie are A LOT more prepared this time around, it feels like a coin toss.

Well, I think he will start here:

DISMANTLING THE ‘DEEP STATE’
Trump would try to strip tens of thousands of career employees of their civil service protections. That way, they could be fired as he seeks to “totally obliterate the deep state.”

THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER
Trump has pledged to “immediately stop the invasion of our southern border” and end illegal immigration.

TRADE
Trump says he will institute a system of tariffs of perhaps 10% on most foreign goods. Penalties would increase if trade partners manipulate their currencies or engage in other unfair trading practices.

FOREIGN POLICY
Trump claims that even before he is inaugurated, he will have settled the war between Russia and Ukraine. That includes, he says, ending the “endless flow of American treasure to Ukraine” and asking European allies to reimburse the U.S. for the cost of rebuilding stockpiles.

TRANSGENDER RIGHTS
Trump says he will ask Congress to pass a bill establishing that “only two genders,” as determined at birth, are recognized by the United States.

ENERGY
Trump’s goal, he says, is for the U.S. to have the lowest-cost energy and electricity of any nation in the world, including China.

EDUCATION
Trump has pledged to terminate the Department of Education, but he also wants to exert enormous influence over local school districts and colleges.

HOMELESSNESS
Trump wants to force the homeless off city streets by building tent cities on large open parcels of inexpensive land. At the same time, he says he will work with states to ban urban camping, giving violators the choice between being arrested or receiving treatment.

PUBLIC SAFETY
Trump would again push to send the National Guard to cities such as Chicago that are struggling with violence. He would use the federal government’s funding and prosecution authorities to strong-arm local governments.

I suppose our democracy can survive those things. My fear is another coup and this time he has had practice and will have who/what he needs in place.

[FunkyDexter]

I suppose our democracy can survive those things

Other than the first (Dismantle the deep state) they're policy decisions rather than threats to democracy. They're mostly decisions I'd disagree with but, none the less, they are policy rather than threat and policies you disagree with a part and parcel of democracy. Now, if only they'd put me in charge with unbridled power I'm sure we'd all get what we want efficiently and with a minimum of fuss

The first one absolutely is a threat to democracy, though. It's code for "remove the protections from our democratic system" and is absolutely part of this concern: "My fear is another coup and this time he has had practice and will have who/what he needs in place." So I'm with you 100% on that as a risk.

Like I said, I'm still not sure how effectively he could achieve that but I'm not going to dismiss it either. At the moment I think the risk is fairly low but that's largely based on my belief that he won't win the next election. If he does win that risk substantially increases. And if the Supreme court do uphold absolute presidential immunity (I think they won't but a couple of the judges are making uncomfortable noises) then I would say the chances would be substantially higher than 50/50.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Aside from the tariffs, and that first one, the rest won't happen. A more competent person might be able to get a couple to happen, but most of them aren't really something the president can do. It would require him to be able to persuade others, something Trump is particularly bad at (they either already follow him or they won't be persuaded).

[TysonLPrice]

I agree those are more policy than threats to democracy. I'm so passionately against Trump I go off on tangents. Concerning:

A more competent person might be able to get a couple to happen, but most of them aren't really something the president can do.

I thoroughly disagree with that. Last time he surrounded himself with veterans of politics and adults. They "some what" kept him within the guardrails. Then he ran them all off and installed yes men. He'll start out that way this time. He might spend the next fours years in court over them but I take him at his word on that. Not much else...

[FunkyDexter]

I go off on tangents

It's Chit Chat. Tangents are what it's for.

He'll start out that way this time.

Yeah, I think that's a legit concern. The plans to do it are openly being touted by the likes of Bannon et al. And if he does win in 2024 it's a pretty safe bet he'll have a supportive Senate and Congress. So I think there will really be only two checks on him:-
1. The electorate - Hope he doesn't get in.
2. The judiciary - although they're getting pretty partisan I feel there are lines they are still holding at present. But if they confer immunity you can consider those line crossed.

[wes4dbt]

2. The judiciary - although they're getting pretty partisan I feel there are lines they are still holding at present. But if they confer immunity you can consider those line crossed.

This doesn't give me much comfort. They usually come after the deed has been done, we're almost 4yrs past several crimes Trump is being charged with and still waiting for the trials to begin. Don't have a lot of confidence in the Supreme Court right now either.

[TysonLPrice]

This doesn't give me much comfort. They usually come after the deed has been done, we're almost 4yrs past several crimes Trump is being charged with and still waiting for the trials to begin. Don't have a lot of confidence in the Supreme Court right now either.

I certainly don't like the current made up, albeit lots of people do. I still have a bad taste in my mouth how the republicans packed them in there. I hate the smirk on Mitch McConnel's face when he boasts about it. I call it a republican dominated court but I also Know technically they call themselves conservatives and somehow that relates to how they interpret the law based on the constitution. I can't really speak to that. What I can speak to is no matter what they call themselves they seem to overwhelmingly support republican positions. So don't pee down my back and tell me it is raining.

[yereverluvinuncleber]

There are some simple alliterative morals emerging from this story. One would be "Prevent Prostitutes from Pissing on Pervy Presidents".

I'm sure there are others.

[TysonLPrice]

Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him Up!

"As much as I do not want to impose a jail sanction..., I want you to understand I will," Merchan told Trump, who sat silently at the defense table dressed in a dark blue suit and red tie.

"At the end of the day I have a job to do and part of that job is to maintain the dignity of the justice system," the judge said, calling Trump's defiance a "direct attack on the rule of law."

https://www.griffindailynews.com/new...d6ea208b3.html

Put him in jail for a reminder...

[FunkyDexter]

Yeah, but it won't be real jail, it'll be puppy jail for a few hours. Maybe overnight at worst.

Mind you, he might be alright in Gen Pop. There's a whole bunch of his supporters in there.

[TysonLPrice]

Yeah, but it won't be real jail, it'll be puppy jail for a few hours. Maybe overnight at worst.

Mind you, he might be alright in Gen Pop. There's a whole bunch of his supporters in there.

But he won't have his hair dresser for a few hours...I'd love to see that. Or, maybe him getting caught in the rain would be fun.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah, but it won't be real jail, it'll be puppy jail for a few hours. Maybe overnight at worst.

Mind you, he might be alright in Gen Pop. There's a whole bunch of his supporters in there.

He'll also have a bunch of Secret Service agents in the cell with him.

This is an issue they have been quietly planning for. The service still has a responsibility to provide protection for him even if he ends up in jail, and as that is entirely possible, they're working out the logistics of such an eventuality.

[FunkyDexter]

The logistics should be quite simple. They'd just stick him in a solitary unit. Whether that's a single cell at the court building or a mothballed jail in the area. I doubt he'd have to share a facility with any other prisoner, let alone a cell. If he does get jail time he won't be put at physical risk and it'll be largely performative.

[TysonLPrice]

The judge convinced Trump he was serious about the gag order and Trump finally shut up. What was Trump's plan B? He got Senator Rick Scott of Florida to come to New York and say everything the Judge told Trump he can't say.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...trial-00157193

An upside-down American flag – a symbol used by some supporters of former President Donald Trump who challenged the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s 2020 victory – hung outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito after the election, The New York Times reported Thursday.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/16/polit...use/index.html

[TysonLPrice]

As of now at least, three GOP senators have now helped Trump skirt a gag order that the judge insists is necessary to protect his proceedings and its participants from harm. The gag order is in place to protect the judicial system and the people participating in it. I shows the low character of the people we elect to such important positions. US senators acting that way really lowers my opinion of them, and that didn't seem possible anymore.

Add speaker Johnson to the mix...he said he came to speak as a concerned citizen, repeating what Trump wants him to

The Vice President audition continues.