It's wonderful that a court has found him guilty of these offences, even though he'll undoubtedly appeal. However, I still find it hugely troubling that he's still evaded trial for attempting a coup on the 6th of January three and a half years ago. Justice delayed is justice denied.
If he wasn't guilty of a very serious offence indeed on that day, as I'd assume he claims, then conversely justice has likewise been denied him.
If he wasn't guilty of a very serious offence indeed on that day, as I'd assume he claims, then conversely justice has likewise been denied him.
I wouldn’t waste too much time worrying that justice has been denied him. He’s the reason that case hasn’t gone to trial yet; he keeps doing things to keep it from happening. Delay is what he wants.
It's wonderful that a court has found him guilty of these offences, even though he'll undoubtedly appeal. However, I still find it hugely troubling that he's still evaded trial for attempting a coup on the 6th of January three and a half years ago. Justice delayed is justice denied.
If he wasn't guilty of a very serious offence indeed on that day, as I'd assume he claims, then conversely justice has likewise been denied him.
In the American system, it is my impression the authorities try the smaller people related to a case first in the hope of building more evidence and witnesses against the ring leaders. In the hush money trial, Cohen, was already convicted. He had the evidence against Trump. It did not help Trump to have ignored Cohen after he had been convicted in a federal court.
Which reminds me. When Cohen was charged in the federal system, prosecutors said Cohen had worked with an unnamed co-conspirator. When the presumed co-conspirator ordered the justice department to drop the case, I believe it was the federal attorney who handed the evidence his office had to the Manhattan DA
What's most interesting to me, is that one of the jurors in their pre-selection questionnaire, indicated that prior to the trial, their only source of news was Truth Social.
What's most interesting to me, is that one of the jurors in their pre-selection questionnaire, indicated that prior to the trial, their only source of news was Truth Social.
Apparently this is wrong.
It was misreported.
Apologies.
According to several sources, like this one, there was a juror who took most of his news from Truth Social and X. But, apparently, he was able to be convinced of Trump's guilt.
For those who are interested Trump's full press availability (calling it a "press conference" implies a level of coherence not really in evidence) can be watched here. It's about half an hour long.
For those who are interested Trump's full press availability (calling it a "press conference" implies a level of coherence not really in evidence) can be watched here. It's about half an hour long.
BBC Radio 5 carried it live. It was a disorganised, barely coherent rant. This is the abridged version:
Whah, whah, whah.
It's soo unfair.
Judge bad.
Biden bad.
Me, so hard done by.
Whah, whah, whah.
Well, this was expected. I wonder if this happens, when will it take place? And where? Or will it just fizzle out. I hope the latter.
I think sporadic terrorist attacks are increasingly likely. Hopefully having seen many of the January 6th insurrectionists suffer the consequences of their actions will give most putchist wannabees pause for thought.
Well, this was expected. I wonder if this happens, when will it take place? And where? Or will it just fizzle out. I hope the latter.
I think sporadic terrorist attacks are increasingly likely. Hopefully having seen many of the January 6th insurrectionists suffer the consequences of their actions will give most putchist wannabees pause for thought.
I've been skeptical of the oft-predicted MAGA uprising since it failed to materialize at Biden's inauguration.
And my reasons are the same as yours, ie. Trump's devotees tend to be at least middle-class, and people with some socioeconomic investment in staying out of prison.
And the common defense at the 1/6 trials, "Your honor, my client was too stupid to realize that he was being manipulated by a con-man", is hardly a great rallying cry for recruiting your militia.
Trump claimed that defense witnesses at his trial were "literally crucified". One of my pet peeves is this specific misuse of the term "literally".
I think "literally" to mean "emphatically" is sufficiently established that it counts as a new meaning of the word. Dictionaries are I think now listing it.
How one expresses "not figuratively" in fewer than seven syllables without ambiguity now I am not sure.
Returning from linguistic pedantry to more serious matters...
Well, this was expected. I wonder if this happens, when will it take place? And where? Or will it just fizzle out. I hope the latter.
I think sporadic terrorist attacks are increasingly likely. Hopefully having seen many of the January 6th insurrectionists suffer the consequences of their actions will give most putchist wannabees pause for thought.
I've been skeptical of the oft-predicted MAGA uprising since it failed to materialize at Biden's inauguration.
And my reasons are the same as yours, ie. Trump's devotees tend to be at least middle-class, and people with some socioeconomic investment in staying out of prison.
And the common defense at the 1/6 trials, "Your honor, my client was too stupid to realize that he was being manipulated by a con-man", is hardly a great rallying cry for recruiting your militia.
I do too. I've been wrong before, God knows, but we haven't seen much in the way of public support for T during this trial--just showy bullshit from politicians who think they can benefit from him. But where are the ordinary people?
I do too. I've been wrong before, God knows, but we haven't seen much in the way of public support for T during this trial--just showy bullshit from politicians who think they can benefit from him. But where are the ordinary people?
I believe that at this point,
attraction to the persona of Donald Trump has dwindled almost to the point of irrelevancy, and that he is now coasting largely on being the most hi-viz alternative to an unpopular Democratic incumbent.
I do too. I've been wrong before, God knows, but we haven't seen much in the way of public support for T during this trial--just showy bullshit from politicians who think they can benefit from him. But where are the ordinary people?
Can anyone explain how Boris Johnson (former Prime Minister) can claim that Trump's conviction is a mob-style liberal hit job?
Here are two Republican and three independent voters who have written short pieces for the BBC. I don't know how representative they are. Only one admits to being a keen Trump supporter but four, arguably five out of five express an idea that the trial was politically biased.
Here are two Republican and three independent voters who have written short pieces for the BBC. I don't know how representative they are. Only one admits to being a keen Trump supporter but four, arguably five out of five express an idea that the trial was politically biased.
What's interesting to me is that none of the people quoted by the BBC is arguing that Trump is factually innocent, that he didn't have sex with Stormy Daniels, purchased her silence, and did so in a way to conceal those payments in an illegal manner. One of them makes a half-hearted gesture in that general direction, saying that "the jury was led to a foregone conclusion" without actually claiming that this conclusion was wrong. They're just claiming that Trump is above the law.
This is, of course, just a variation on Trump's election denialism. He would have won (or really did win) except the other side cheated. It's one of his go-to excuses.
Countries around the world implement stringent entry requirements to protect their citizens and maintain national security. According to the World Population Review, G7 nations Canada, the United Kingdom and Japan have established policies that prohibit entry to individuals with felony convictions. Additionally, Israel and China also impose such bans. These regulations often result in automatic denial of visas or entry permits to convicted felons, potentially impacting Trump's ability to travel internationally.
Based on data from the World Population Review, here is a list of countries that do not allow convicted felons to enter:
Argentina
Australia
Canada
China
Cuba
India
Iran
Israel
Japan
Kenya
Macau
New Zealand
South Africa
Taiwan
United Kingdom
United States*
The United States gets an asterisk because countries don't get to refuse entry to their own felonious citizens.
He just bought the marginal black and Hispanic vote.
I’m pretty sure the Ship has a policy against posting legally actionable libel, like claiming a political candidate is involved in a vote buying scheme.
Black voters in NY at least will remember Trump's paid ad in the NYTimes (May 1, 1989, pg 13) calling for a reinstatement of the death penalty for the so-called Central Park Five. I'm hoping they remind other black voters. I try to remind everybody.
Losing to a New York jury is exactly what he played for. To win the margin. Can you join up the dots? On a couple of lines there.
Deliberately planning to lose a criminal trial, under what you seem to think is his assumption that he would never get jail time, would be a huge risk. I'm pretty sure he was hoping to win.
And, anyway, has your prediction all along been that he was going to lose and that he wanted to?
Plus, what does any of this have to do with the Black and Hispanic vote??
I think Croesos is right. I think that is what the jury saw. All this stuff about political bias is a smokescreen designed to obscure the fact of his guilt. He sought to suppress scandal about a sexual relationship with a porn star because it would harm his 2016 election prospects. And the way he did that makes the acts of suppression felonious, not just a misdemeanour
Unfortunately, the spin machine will continue to obscure the obvious. "Alternative truth" seems to have a lot of support. The BBC article, rather than demonstrating balance, was helpful to the spin machine.
Trump does seem to understand the trial is not over. He has to stand before Judge Merchan at least one more time. Calling Merchan the devil, Seems Trump is asking for incarceration. And if he attacks the jury, oh boy.
Trump does seem to understand the trial is not over. He has to stand before Judge Merchan at least one more time.
Did you mean to have a “not” in that first sentence?
And the trial is over; it was over when the jury rendered its verdicts and the judge dismissed the jury. What remains is sentencing and entry of judgment.
Trump already has had a tendency to get a bit unhinged, and that seems to have gotten worse over the last year or so. I’m curious to see if his conviction exacerbates that. And if it does, what political effect it might have.
I beg to differ Nick. I am told that ultimately a trial is not over until all appeals are dealt with or the person completes the sentence.
After the jury has issued its verdict, NY state requires a pre-sentencing investigation. Once that investigation is completed and submitted to the judge, both the prosecution and the defense has the opportunity to submit briefs on what they want to see in the sentencing. The defense also has the right move for a judgement of acquittal, The judge gives the sentence, and the defense has the right of appeal ultimately to the NY Court of Appeals, as you have pointed out.
And my reasons are the same as yours, ie. Trump's devotees tend to be at least middle-class, and people with some socioeconomic investment in staying out of prison.
Seems to me the people that are devotes of Trump may have been middle class at one time, but many of them have lost socio-economic ground over the years--largely due to the Reagan and other Republican tax cuts for the very rich. These people are very angry and have little to lose.
I beg to differ Nick. I am told that ultimately a trial is not over until all appeals are dealt with or the person completes the sentence.
After the jury has issued its verdict, NY state requires a pre-sentencing investigation. Once that investigation is completed and submitted to the judge, both the prosecution and the defense has the opportunity to submit briefs on what they want to see in the sentencing. The defense also has the right move for a judgement of acquittal, The judge gives the sentence, and the defense has the right of appeal ultimately to the NY Court of Appeals, as you have pointed out.
And my reasons are the same as yours, ie. Trump's devotees tend to be at least middle-class, and people with some socioeconomic investment in staying out of prison.
Seems to me the people that are devotes of Trump may have been middle class at one time, but many of them have lost socio-economic ground over the years--largely due to the Reagan and other Republican tax cuts for the very rich. These people are very angry and have little to lose.
I dunno. I don't quite get the impression they're part of the genuine lumpenproetariat. Yeah, a car-dealer in small-town Wyoming has likely taken a few hits as of late, but as long as he's still got the shop, and it's making at least a modest contribution to maintaining him economically, he's not gonna make a calculated decision to join an armed mob driving into Cheyenne to shoot their way into the federal building, when he almost certainly has the legal fate of the 1/6ers somewhere in his mind(*).
Which is not to say there couldn't be violence, but mostly stochastic, with the perpetrators either being anonymous, or the kind of ideologically misdirected social misfits who tend to populate the really violent American fascist groups(neo-nazis, anti-abortion terrorists etc). And sometimes both.
Granted, yes, there are probably a few people with relatively stable lives and careers who are also the kind to believe with 100% certainty that they can successfully commit serious crimes against the US government as part of an absolute foolproof plan to put Trump in power and give them all instant pardons. But I'm gonna speculate the venn-overlap on that is pretty small.
Nothing to do but pray. Still, it’s a comfort to have the justice system work right in such a public case, and this may make the next three cases work a bit more smoothly, as they will no longer be “the first” to find him guilty (and what sensible person doubts that he is?).
I do hope the sentencing is something that will produce the maximum inconvenience for him and the minimum political or fundraising capital. That will take a great deal of wisdom to sort out.
I beg to differ Nick. I am told that ultimately a trial is not over until all appeals are dealt with or the person completes the sentence.
Whoever told you that is mistaken.
A trial is the part of the process where the trier of fact—jury or judge—determines guilt (in a criminal case) or liability (in a civil case). The trial is over, the sentencing hearing is next.
Appeals are most definitely not part of the trial. The criminal proceedings aren’t over until the appeals are dealt with, but the trial is only one stage of the criminal proceedings.
@Nick Tamen. Trump's beating Biden hands down now. Inflation. The economy doesn't feel like what it is. Booming.
No argument, except as to “hands down.” The polls show it very close. And we’re five months away from the election (four months from when people in some states can start voting), and lots can happen in that time.
I’m not saying Trump has no chance of winning. That could certainly happen. I’m saying your certainty that there’s no way it won’t happen is ill-founded and tiresome. You were wrong last time, yet you seem unwilling to consider that you just might be wrong this time.
And my reasons are the same as yours, ie. Trump's devotees tend to be at least middle-class, and people with some socioeconomic investment in staying out of prison.
Seems to me the people that are devotes of Trump may have been middle class at one time, but many of them have lost socio-economic ground over the years--largely due to the Reagan and other Republican tax cuts for the very rich. These people are very angry and have little to lose.
I dunno. I don't quite get the impression they're part of the genuine lumpenproetariat. Yeah, a car-dealer in small-town Wyoming has likely taken a few hits as of late, but as long as he's still got the shop, and it's making at least a modest contribution to maintaining him economically, he's not gonna make a calculated decision to join an armed mob driving into Cheyenne to shoot their way into the federal building, when he almost certainly has the legal fate of the 1/6ers somewhere in his mind(*).
One of the most consistent predictors of likelihood of voting Republican is household income. The richer an American is, the more likely they are to pull the lever* for a Republican presidential candidate. Or as one political analyst put it, the median Trump voter is a dentist who has a boat. The electorally significant Trump voter is a factory worker who has a sister with a pill problem.
As for whether they've "taken a few hits as of late", I guess it depends on what you mean by "hits" and "of late". Almost all Americans are doing better economically now than they were during Trump's last year in office, which included a recession where Americans were literally** fighting each other over the last package of toilet paper in the store. On the other hand Trump supporters have taken a definite hit in what W.E.B. DuBois referred to as the psychological wage of whiteness, the social rewards accorded to white people even in situations where economic rewards were not forthcoming. Everyone who claims that Trump's support comes from the economic squeeze felt bey his followers seems to uniformly ignore the fact Trump's support among non-white Americans is tiny despite the fact that they're almost always getting squeezed a lot harder than white Americans.
*Metaphorically speaking. I'm pretty certain that all the old Roosevelt-era lever and gear voting machines have been retired by now.
** As in actually literally for real having physical altercations over toilet paper.
Comments
If he wasn't guilty of a very serious offence indeed on that day, as I'd assume he claims, then conversely justice has likewise been denied him.
In the American system, it is my impression the authorities try the smaller people related to a case first in the hope of building more evidence and witnesses against the ring leaders. In the hush money trial, Cohen, was already convicted. He had the evidence against Trump. It did not help Trump to have ignored Cohen after he had been convicted in a federal court.
Which reminds me. When Cohen was charged in the federal system, prosecutors said Cohen had worked with an unnamed co-conspirator. When the presumed co-conspirator ordered the justice department to drop the case, I believe it was the federal attorney who handed the evidence his office had to the Manhattan DA
Oh, the tangled web we weave.
Apparently this is wrong.
It was misreported.
Apologies.
Trump claimed that defense witnesses at his trial were "literally crucified". One of my pet peeves is this specific misuse of the term "literally".
According to several sources, like this one, there was a juror who took most of his news from Truth Social and X. But, apparently, he was able to be convinced of Trump's guilt.
BBC Radio 5 carried it live. It was a disorganised, barely coherent rant. This is the abridged version:
AFZ
I think sporadic terrorist attacks are increasingly likely. Hopefully having seen many of the January 6th insurrectionists suffer the consequences of their actions will give most putchist wannabees pause for thought.
I've been skeptical of the oft-predicted MAGA uprising since it failed to materialize at Biden's inauguration.
And my reasons are the same as yours, ie. Trump's devotees tend to be at least middle-class, and people with some socioeconomic investment in staying out of prison.
And the common defense at the 1/6 trials, "Your honor, my client was too stupid to realize that he was being manipulated by a con-man", is hardly a great rallying cry for recruiting your militia.
How one expresses "not figuratively" in fewer than seven syllables without ambiguity now I am not sure.
Returning from linguistic pedantry to more serious matters...
‘Actually’ my waits — for a while.
What does "my waits" mean?
Thanks.
I sincerely hope you are both right.
I believe that at this point,
attraction to the persona of Donald Trump has dwindled almost to the point of irrelevancy, and that he is now coasting largely on being the most hi-viz alternative to an unpopular Democratic incumbent.
Here are two Republican and three independent voters who have written short pieces for the BBC. I don't know how representative they are. Only one admits to being a keen Trump supporter but four, arguably five out of five express an idea that the trial was politically biased.
What's interesting to me is that none of the people quoted by the BBC is arguing that Trump is factually innocent, that he didn't have sex with Stormy Daniels, purchased her silence, and did so in a way to conceal those payments in an illegal manner. One of them makes a half-hearted gesture in that general direction, saying that "the jury was led to a foregone conclusion" without actually claiming that this conclusion was wrong. They're just claiming that Trump is above the law.
This is, of course, just a variation on Trump's election denialism. He would have won (or really did win) except the other side cheated. It's one of his go-to excuses.
On another, somewhat related matter, there's good news for British, Australian, Canadian, and New Zealander shipmates.
The United States gets an asterisk because countries don't get to refuse entry to their own felonious citizens.
For real.
Welcome back @Martin54
You’ve been away for a while so maybe you haven’t been keeping up with the news from Trump’s criminal trial. Trump lost.
I’m pretty sure the Ship has a policy against posting legally actionable libel, like claiming a political candidate is involved in a vote buying scheme.
On The Beach. Yep.
Deliberately planning to lose a criminal trial, under what you seem to think is his assumption that he would never get jail time, would be a huge risk. I'm pretty sure he was hoping to win.
And, anyway, has your prediction all along been that he was going to lose and that he wanted to?
Plus, what does any of this have to do with the Black and Hispanic vote??
Unfortunately, the spin machine will continue to obscure the obvious. "Alternative truth" seems to have a lot of support. The BBC article, rather than demonstrating balance, was helpful to the spin machine.
And the trial is over; it was over when the jury rendered its verdicts and the judge dismissed the jury. What remains is sentencing and entry of judgment.
Trump already has had a tendency to get a bit unhinged, and that seems to have gotten worse over the last year or so. I’m curious to see if his conviction exacerbates that. And if it does, what political effect it might have.
After the jury has issued its verdict, NY state requires a pre-sentencing investigation. Once that investigation is completed and submitted to the judge, both the prosecution and the defense has the opportunity to submit briefs on what they want to see in the sentencing. The defense also has the right move for a judgement of acquittal, The judge gives the sentence, and the defense has the right of appeal ultimately to the NY Court of Appeals, as you have pointed out.
It is not over until it is over.
Note to @stetson You wrote:
And my reasons are the same as yours, ie. Trump's devotees tend to be at least middle-class, and people with some socioeconomic investment in staying out of prison.
Seems to me the people that are devotes of Trump may have been middle class at one time, but many of them have lost socio-economic ground over the years--largely due to the Reagan and other Republican tax cuts for the very rich. These people are very angry and have little to lose.
I dunno. I don't quite get the impression they're part of the genuine lumpenproetariat. Yeah, a car-dealer in small-town Wyoming has likely taken a few hits as of late, but as long as he's still got the shop, and it's making at least a modest contribution to maintaining him economically, he's not gonna make a calculated decision to join an armed mob driving into Cheyenne to shoot their way into the federal building, when he almost certainly has the legal fate of the 1/6ers somewhere in his mind(*).
Which is not to say there couldn't be violence, but mostly stochastic, with the perpetrators either being anonymous, or the kind of ideologically misdirected social misfits who tend to populate the really violent American fascist groups(neo-nazis, anti-abortion terrorists etc). And sometimes both.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-verdict-makes-significant-number-republicans-less-likely-support-him-poll
Biden: 41%
Trump: 39%
10% of Republicans less likely to vote for Trump.
25% of independents less likely to vote for Trump.
We are a long way from certainty and it's only one poll but if those numbers are accurate, Trump will lose.
(And yes, I do think it significant that this is a poll commissioned by Fox News).
AFZ
I feel for you and all Americans affected 🙏 🕯️
Yes. He’s projecting every time he opens his mouth.
How can Biden?
Do you think Trump is guilty? See Croesos' post re the BBC article.
To make it clear. I'm sure he is and I'm sure he was seeking to obstruct information relevant to the 2016 election. And I'm sure the jury saw that.
How can Trump not lose? It doesn't take too many independents to see he really is a felon. And if they do he loses.
Whoever told you that is mistaken.
A trial is the part of the process where the trier of fact—jury or judge—determines guilt (in a criminal case) or liability (in a civil case). The trial is over, the sentencing hearing is next.
Appeals are most definitely not part of the trial. The criminal proceedings aren’t over until the appeals are dealt with, but the trial is only one stage of the criminal proceedings.
@Nick Tamen. Trump's beating Biden hands down now. Inflation. The economy doesn't feel like what it is. Booming.
I’m not saying Trump has no chance of winning. That could certainly happen. I’m saying your certainty that there’s no way it won’t happen is ill-founded and tiresome. You were wrong last time, yet you seem unwilling to consider that you just might be wrong this time.
One of the most consistent predictors of likelihood of voting Republican is household income. The richer an American is, the more likely they are to pull the lever* for a Republican presidential candidate. Or as one political analyst put it, the median Trump voter is a dentist who has a boat. The electorally significant Trump voter is a factory worker who has a sister with a pill problem.
As for whether they've "taken a few hits as of late", I guess it depends on what you mean by "hits" and "of late". Almost all Americans are doing better economically now than they were during Trump's last year in office, which included a recession where Americans were literally** fighting each other over the last package of toilet paper in the store. On the other hand Trump supporters have taken a definite hit in what W.E.B. DuBois referred to as the psychological wage of whiteness, the social rewards accorded to white people even in situations where economic rewards were not forthcoming. Everyone who claims that Trump's support comes from the economic squeeze felt bey his followers seems to uniformly ignore the fact Trump's support among non-white Americans is tiny despite the fact that they're almost always getting squeezed a lot harder than white Americans.
*Metaphorically speaking. I'm pretty certain that all the old Roosevelt-era lever and gear voting machines have been retired by now.
** As in actually literally for real having physical altercations over toilet paper.