Ok, I can live with the phrase, criminal proceedings.
Politico has an article this morning that says Trump's first chance at appeal is with New York's First Justice Department's appellate court. Politico calls the court the 13th juror. It will probably be looking at the theory the prosecutors used in making two misdemeanors into one felony--in so many words.
While I agree with @Crœsos point about who is traditionally more likely to vote Republican, the question was about who is more likely to riot over the Trump verdict and sentencing. Looking at the people who rioted on January 6, they appeared to be middle class (largely white) people who feared they were losing their social status due to economic pressures.
@stetson, your illustration of a used car dealer from Wyoming is a case in point. Assuming the person is male--could be a female, too--he really would have nothing to lose, except for a little bit of time tied up in federal court if he got charged. Wyoming is one of the reddest states in the union. He is not going to lose any customers for his participation in any disturbance on Trump's behalf. He likely will believe his participation in a Trump free for all will be thrown out of a court or nullified if the case is tried in Wyoming.
In other words, it will be little skin off his back.
While I agree with @Crœsos point about who is traditionally more likely to vote Republican, the question was about who is more likely to riot over the Trump verdict and sentencing. Looking at the people who rioted on January 6, they appeared to be middle class (largely white) people who feared they were losing their social status due to economic pressures.
I agree with your analysis of the demographics of most January 6 rioters. They seem to be what has been described as "Buddy Garrity Republicans", named after a fictional character in the American television series Friday Night Lights. Like your Wyoming example, Garrity is a car dealer, though he lives in Texas.
Mike Konczal
The "Buddy Garrity Republican" is a perfect encapsulation. Rich, but not private equity rich. Civil society, but mostly about his dealership logo on the school's stadium. Wealthy, but not in the LLC way but "owns many cars and houses" way.
In other words, someone without a college degree who is nonetheless in the upper two income quintiles.
Where I disagree is with your last four words. The grievance that seem to fuel Trump supporters aren't primarily economic but social. They no longer receive the automatic deference they feel is owed them as white people (and, increasingly, as straight people). People whose existence they once could use as evidence of their own innate superiority are increasingly accepted as peers in society and they don't like it.
I cannot see Trump winning an appeal in a NY court. The Supreme Court is a complex question.
Now, I am not a lawyer but I am confident that I am correct.* NY, like all legal systems descended from English Law have quite clear demarcation. Juries find fact. Appeals Courts deal with law.
For an appeals court to quash a conviction, there needs to be very strong evidence that the jury got it wrong. In English Courts, they will often not hear a case in the absence of new evidence. The evidence that Trump did it is very, very strong so that I cannot see.
The legal angle is that the conviction could be reversed if the judge made an error which affected the jury's ability to come to a fair verdict or got the law wrong. Having read some experts in NY law, I just cannot see this. It's true that some salacious evidence was allowed which could be considered prejudicial (as not necessarily directly relevant). However, that evidence became relevant because of the defence Trump insisted on. So I doubt that he would be reversed. Moreover, it is categorically true that Trump was granted more latitude and consideration than any defendant ever. Quite the opposite of his pathetic whining.
As to the legal construction that made the misdemeanours into felonies, there is case law that shows these convictions were previously upheld.
I cannot see a successful NY appeal. At all.
As to SCOTUS, well. AIUI, in state matters, SCOTUS can only intervene when the State has breached the felon's constitution rights (that's not quite true, but close enough). No rational analysis would support this but with this SC, it is just possible. I think unlikely but it shouldn't even be entertained as a possibility.
AFZ
*I am sure that any actual lawyers here will correct me, if I got any part wrong. Please do.
@stetson, your illustration of a used car dealer from Wyoming is a case in point. Assuming the person is male--could be a female, too--he really would have nothing to lose, except for a little bit of time tied up in federal court if he got charged. Wyoming is one of the reddest states in the union. He is not going to lose any customers for his participation in any disturbance on Trump's behalf. He likely will believe his participation in a Trump free for all will be thrown out of a court or nullified if the case is tried in Wyoming.
The italicized part is where I would disagree. Like I said, there might be a few propertied individuals who believe that they can break serious federal laws and get off totally scot-free because a Trump victory is 100% guaranteed in November, but I don't see there being enough of them at this point to pull off another 1/6, much less co-ordinated attacks nationwide.
I'm also gonna speculate that, even in a sympathetic state(*), being charged with federal crimes is a little more of an inconvenience than having to show up in traffic-court for a speeding ticket. You're gonna have to pay a lawyer, post bail, obey bail conditions etc.
(*) And have there been alot of cases of 1/6ers in red-state being acquitted by sympathetic juries? Can't say I've heard of many, or at least none where the acquittals were outrageous relative to the facts presented in court.
It's true that some salacious evidence was allowed which could be considered prejudicial (as not necessarily directly relevant). However, that evidence became relevant because of the defence Trump insisted on.
You mean because Trump denied having sex with Ms. Daniels?
Now, I am not a lawyer but I am confident that I am correct.* NY, like all legal systems descended from English Law have quite clear demarcation. Juries find fact. Appeals Courts deal with law.
For an appeals court to quash a conviction, there needs to be very strong evidence that the jury got it wrong.
You’re right as to the fact/law distinction, but not quite about vacating a conviction.
With regard to reviewing evidence, an appellate court can only vacate the jury’s verdict if it determines, after a review of the entire record, that there was no competent evidence to support the jury’s verdict. That is to say, the appellate court cannot (at least not without violating well-established judicial boundaries) substitute its view of the evidence for the jury’s. The jury not only heard all the evidence, but was able to observe and make judgments about the witnesses giving that evidence. An appellate court doesn’t have that ability. The appellate court is bound by the verdict unless there is no competent evidence to support it.
That means that even if 99 witnesses give an abundance of compelling testimony that the defendant didn’t commit the crime and only one witness offers testimony from which it can be determined that the defendant did commit the crime, if the jury believes the one witness over the 99, the appellate court is bound by that. That is, as long as the testimony of the one witness was properly admissible evidence.
The other thing an appellate court can do is order a new trial if it determines that an error occurred at trial that deprived the defendant of a fair trial. As a general rule, for a new trial to be ordered, it must be shown that but for the error, the jury likely would have reached a different verdict. If that can’t be shown, the error is generally considered “harmless.”
Of course, there could also be appellate issues regarding things like the sufficiency of the indictment (did it adequately let Trump know what he needed to defend himself against?), or aspects of sentencing.
It's true that some salacious evidence was allowed which could be considered prejudicial (as not necessarily directly relevant). However, that evidence became relevant because of the defence Trump insisted on.
You mean because Trump denied having sex with Ms. Daniels?
The smart thing for Trump’s defense would have been to stipulate that he had sex with Stormy Daniels, which would meant no need for testimony to prove he did, so she never would have been in a position to testify about the details. But from all accounts, Trump insisted that the defense be that she was lying.
According to at least some reports I heard when Stormy Daniels testified, she gave at least some of that salacious testimony without any objection from defense counsel. If that is indeed the case, they may have waived the ability to argue on appeal that the evidence was improper or unduly prejudicial.
Thanks Nick, that's what I meant, even if I didn't quite get there.
As to Ms Daniels' testimony, I have read detailed observations by experts who were present. They agreed with both your points.
As I said, I cannot see any reversal by NY courts.
And, if I'm honest, I can't see even this ridiculous Supreme Court getting involved.
To me the unanswered question is will he get a custodial sentence?
It's a class E felony (I'm told, the lowest). He's a non-violent offender. On the other side is Trump's behaviour and lack of contrition throughout and the fact that a fine is realistically no penalty at all. Anyone know the sentencing rules that apply here?
Where I disagree is with your last four words. The grievance that seem to fuel Trump supporters aren't primarily economic but social. They no longer receive the automatic deference they feel is owed them as white people (and, increasingly, as straight people). People whose existence they once could use as evidence of their own innate superiority are increasingly accepted as peers in society and they don't like it.
Yes, I can agree both economic and racial privileges work hand in hand.
Regarding the hypothetical used car dealer in Wyoming, I wrote he may believe his participation in a Trump free for all may be thrown out or nullified if the case is tried in Wyoming.
Your response
The italicized part is where I would disagree. Like I said, there might be a few propertied individuals who believe that they can break serious federal laws and get off totally scot-free because a Trump victory is 100% guaranteed in November, but I don't see there being enough of them at this point to pull off another 1/6, much less co-ordinated attacks nationwide.
Did you read @Crœsos description of a similar hypothetical used car dealer in Texas?
There just might be more than a few propertied individuals in deep read states that think they can make the sacrifice for their dear leader if they assume he will bail him out when the becomes the president again.
They really do not have to have coordinated attacks to throw wrenches in the system. Even one or two individuals trying to hunt the jurors down to deal with them throws the sanctity of the judicial system in question. An attack on local federal offices is not out of the question.
You can bet the big propertied individuals, like oil executives, will not get involved. But it is people like Joe, the Plumber (now deceased) who challenged Obama, to get involved in a Trump action because they have little to lose.
It's a class E felony (I'm told, the lowest). He's a non-violent offender. On the other side is Trump's behaviour and lack of contrition throughout and the fact that a fine is realistically no penalty at all. Anyone know the sentencing rules that apply here?
It's my understanding that possible penalties range anywhere from community service or a suspended sentence up through four year's imprisonment. In addition to the factors you mention, Felonious Trump is also (legally speaking) a first time offender and, since he'll be 78 next month, he's old enough to be considered a "vulnerable prisoner". Both of these are usually considered mitigating factors when it comes to sentencing, but given the contempt that convicted felon Donald Trump has shown for the legal system I have no guess as to where this would place him within the sentencing system.
@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.
Less likely than last time. I'm a true liberal Nick. The world doesn't go according to my privilege. Enough minorities should think, 'Hey, he's one of us!'.
I’ll be very surprised if Trump gets any prison time. From everything I understand, prison time pretty much never happens with first-time offenders convicted of this particular felony. My expectation is that the judge will go straight by the book; he won’t want to manufacture any potential support for an argument that he wasn’t impartial.
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.
Less likely than last time. I'm a true liberal Nick. The world doesn't go according to my privilege. Enough minorities should think, 'Hey, he's one of us!'.
Should they? Can you unpack that a little, along with an explanation about who the fuck are you to tell minorities what they "should" do?
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.
Less likely than last time. I'm a true liberal Nick. The world doesn't go according to my privilege. Enough minorities should think, 'Hey, he's one of us!'.
Should they? Can you unpack that a little, along with an explanation about who the fuck are you to tell minorities what they "should" do?
The only minority that would think he is one of them is the low class white minority who think the world has passed them by and are afraid of losing their white privilege status
@Crœsos. As you should know there is no moral, high minded, highbrow axis to 'should', except here among the privileged. The should is in Trump's signalling his wooden handle to the dispossessed, deprived masses of black and Hispanic minorities.
I know 4% is well within the "say any old shit to finish the survey" margin but I'm kind of curious what's going on with the democrats who think the trial was unfair. The last handful of Dixiecrats? People who think the trial was too generous to Trump? Radicals who think any trial in US is inherently unfair? Unhinged folk who think that Trump was unfairly tried under admiralty law because the government secretly registered him as a boat?
On a question of balance, I note that the judge in the Hunter Biden case has ruled inadmissible a piece of defence evidence and the potential testimony of a defence witness. These rulings will make the defence case harder.
Doubt it. Community service involves accountability to a boss or supervisor. You can’t do community service on your own terms. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a legally enforcible punishment.
@Crœsos. As you should know there is no moral, high minded, highbrow axis to 'should', except here among the privileged. The should is in Trump's signalling his wooden handle to the dispossessed, deprived masses of black and Hispanic minorities.
Again, I'm not clear on what you're trying to say here. In what way is Donald Trump, a man who lives in a gilded palace, signalling that he's dispossessed or deprived (or black or Hispanic)?
I know 4% is well within the "say any old shit to finish the survey" margin but I'm kind of curious what's going on with the democrats who think the trial was unfair. The last handful of Dixiecrats? People who think the trial was too generous to Trump? Radicals who think any trial in US is inherently unfair? Unhinged folk who think that Trump was unfairly tried under admiralty law because the government secretly registered him as a boat?
I am someone who would vote for Biden in November no matter what, but I am open-minded enough to listen to arguments that the trial might have been unfair, especially given that the prosecutor serves as an elected official in a heavily Democratic city(*).
And I did, in fact, hear a few credible-sounding arguments to the effect that the case against Trump was on shaky ground. Now, I eventually heard what sounded like credible defenses of the trial, but I suppose if I had answered a poll in the period of time between hearing the criticism and the defense, AND if I wasn't trying to swing the poll in a partisan direction, I might have answered like the 4% did.
I think the trouble is that it's a complicated kind of charge--one thing is dependent on another, and none of it is inherently nasty in the sense that "He killed that guy" would be. People have to have the issue (the falsifications) explained, that the reason they matter so much is because they are in support of a second deeper issue that isn't being charged (which sounds odd in itself to ordinary folks). If someone isn't listening carefully, it can all come off as "Trump told a few mild lies to cover up his affair, which is pretty understandable" when it's really "Trump broke election law in the matter of contributions (though we're not charging him on that, because it's federal and we're state) and THEN he falsified records to cover it up, which is itself a crime, and the only one we in this state have got jurisdiction for--but it's certainly a big enough deal to stand alone, since it amounts to a felony (or 34 of them)" (as the jurors clearly understood.).
@Crœsos. As you should know there is no moral, high minded, highbrow axis to 'should', except here among the privileged. The should is in Trump's signalling his wooden handle to the dispossessed, deprived masses of black and Hispanic minorities.
Again, I'm not clear on what you're trying to say here. In what way is Donald Trump, a man who lives in a gilded palace, signalling that he's dispossessed or deprived (or black or Hispanic)?
@Crœsos. As you should know there is no moral, high minded, highbrow axis to 'should', except here among the privileged. The should is in Trump's signalling his wooden handle to the dispossessed, deprived masses of black and Hispanic minorities.
Again, I'm not clear on what you're trying to say here. In what way is Donald Trump, a man who lives in a gilded palace, signalling that he's dispossessed or deprived (or black or Hispanic)?
Because 'The Man' finds them all guilty?
I don't think significant numbers of Blacks and Hispanics will be dumb enough to think "Gee, our people get framed by the legal system, and Trump says he was framed, so I guess that means Trump is one of us."
@Crœsos. As you should know there is no moral, high minded, highbrow axis to 'should', except here among the privileged. The should is in Trump's signalling his wooden handle to the dispossessed, deprived masses of black and Hispanic minorities.
Again, I'm not clear on what you're trying to say here. In what way is Donald Trump, a man who lives in a gilded palace, signalling that he's dispossessed or deprived (or black or Hispanic)?
Because 'The Man' finds them all guilty?
I don't think significant numbers of Blacks and Hispanics will be dumb enough to think "Gee, our people get framed by the legal system, and Trump says he was framed, so I guess that means Trump is one of us."
Dumb? On the same spectrum as Clinton's human scum.
@Crœsos. As you should know there is no moral, high minded, highbrow axis to 'should', except here among the privileged. The should is in Trump's signalling his wooden handle to the dispossessed, deprived masses of black and Hispanic minorities.
Again, I'm not clear on what you're trying to say here. In what way is Donald Trump, a man who lives in a gilded palace, signalling that he's dispossessed or deprived (or black or Hispanic)?
Because 'The Man' finds them all guilty?
I don't think significant numbers of Blacks and Hispanics will be dumb enough to think "Gee, our people get framed by the legal system, and Trump says he was framed, so I guess that means Trump is one of us."
Dumb? On the same spectrum as Clinton's human scum.
I believe the term she used was "deplorables". And I don't think too many of them were drawn to Trump because they had personal histories of being persecuted by cops and the legal system.
"Deplorable" was actually a big mistake.. Hillary did not understand the significance of cultism. Or if she did, she omitted to see its political usefulness. It's possible to have sympathy for cult members but hardly for folks you think are just deplorable. You can criticise the help out of the cult leader on his own. His followers will not listen but folks on the margins will recognise the distinction you draw. Furthermore it's the truth. Trump recognised their unswerving loyalty as something he could depend upon. And therefore exploit. Still does.
"Deplorable" was actually a big mistake.. Hillary did not understand the significance of cultism. Or if she did, she omitted to see its political usefulness. It's possible to have sympathy for cult members but hardly for folks you think are just deplorable. You can criticise the help out of the cult leader on his own. His followers will not listen but folks on the margins will recognise the distinction you draw.
Anti-populism is always a tightrope, because in attacking a demagogue for being demagogic, it's easy to slip into attacking the ordinary voters who are being demagoged. Like if Pepsi were to run ads saying "Can you believe all those idiots who drink Coke? Don't be like them."
Mind you, Obama did manage to get away with describing rural conservatives as "cling[ing] to their Gods and their guns" in 2008. Maybe because that invokes a fairly specific image that even many religious gun-owners don't think references them(*). Or perhaps Obama just didn't have the same pre-existing rep for obnoxiousness that had accrued, fairly or otherwise, to Hillary Clinton over the years.
(*) For example, a centrist, Episcopalian Manhattan lawyer with a couple of hunting-rifles he keeps up at his lodge in Vermont is not going to visualize Obama's caricature as himself. More like the villains from Deliverance.
I have always hoped that Michelle Obama was right. Both morally and politically.
“When they go low, we go high”.
Given the current polarisation, however, there is even confusion over what is low and what is high. It’s very hard for me personally to see the current levels of social incohesion. And fear the outcome.
I’m not sure that moral imperatives are related to enlightened liberal privilege. Maybe I’m wrong?
I watched MTG insult and accuse Dr Fauci yesterday and had little difficulty in seeing the wrongness of her behaviour. I thought it was an abuse of her privilege. And the assertion of lies as truth.
Her supporters see otherwise. Isn’t she, and aren’t they, just wrong?
We enlightened liberals have to check our enormous privilege.
That's true, and it would apply in a case where members of marginalized groups are supporting a right-wing politician, and getting criticized by upper-class liberals, who fail to take into account that some of the marginalized might have logical reasons for supporting him. Example: if a lot of racialized people work in a factory faced with closure, and the racist mayor wants to keep the factory open, some racialized people might put their objections to the racism aside, and vote for the mayor, however much that might outrage upper-class progressives who aren't themselves faced with looming unemployment.
But you haven't shown that there are any significant numbers of Black people being drawn into Trump's camp out of fraternal sympathy with his alleged mistreatment by the legal system. The only evidence is Trump's own claims that that is happening, which I take with a grain of salt.
And watching that clip of then-Secretary Clinton, yeah, it really was a boneheaded thing to say. She herself even prefaced it with the admission that she was being "grossly generalistic", and if that's how you're describing your own comments, it's prob'ly a pretty good indication that you shouldn't be making them.
Wouldn't dumb be on the same spectrum as Clinton's human scum? Which was illiberally dumb of her. Put Trump in power. You catch more flies with honey.
What’s your source for her using that phrase? I know Trump has been quoted recently as using it, but what’s your source for Clinton using it?
Damned if I know! I had half an ear to the TV, knew Trump had said it, saw a clip of Hillary Clinton and swear, obviously completely wrongly, that she used it first.
I apologise to Ms. Clinton. But she was still absurdly foolish in her abuse of privilege.
Whatever specific wording Mrs. Clinton used, I think it is clear that this was something she should not have said in public (and probably not in private), an unforced error.
Wouldn't dumb be on the same spectrum as Clinton's human scum? Which was illiberally dumb of her. Put Trump in power. You catch more flies with honey.
What’s your source for her using that phrase? I know Trump has been quoted recently as using it, but what’s your source for Clinton using it?
Hillary made the "basket of deplorables" comment at an LGBT fundraiser in New York. That is, I believe it was at an event to raise funds for her campaign from donors in the LGBT community. US politicians often are caught saying things at fundraisers to donors that they wouldn't otherwise say especially if they do not know they are being recorded. Hillary DID know that her speech was being filmed, though, so she had not fully let her guard down, but even at fundraisers with cameras politicians often try to get on donor's good side by acting like they are letting them in on what they "really think" or on an "insider's view". They want the donors to feel like they are getting something out of all the money they spent to attend the event and be near the candidate.
Hillary also probably felt like Trump had no chance of winning (the polls made it look this way for most of the race) and felt that she should focus on fundraising as much if not more than on campaigning in order to have the money to make her victory and the victory of other Democrats overwhelming - there was talk of Democrats sweeping the map and winning in deep red Republican territory.
Members of Congress have complained that the one thing they spend the time on more than anything else is calling donors. It really makes it hard for US politicians to set their priorities straight.
I think there’s a world of difference IMO between calling people ‘a basket of deplorables’, objectionable and unwise as that was, and calling them ‘human scum’.
Not all. Enshrining abuse of privilege is a sign of both ignorance and arrogance and those vices are not confined to folks with a particular political outlook. They are much more widespread. Humility is relatively rare these days.
Again, I'm not clear on what you're trying to say here. In what way is Donald Trump, a man who lives in a gilded palace, signalling that he's dispossessed or deprived (or black or Hispanic)?
Because 'The Man' finds them all guilty?
It seems incredibly racist to just assume that all black and Hispanic Americans are all such dedicated criminals that they will automatically admire anyone convicted of a felony involving financial fraud. It seems contrary to the evidence. Bernie Madoff and Sam Bankman-Fried, convicted of crimes similar to Mr. Trump's, are not folk heroes to black or Hispanic Americans. Derek Chauvin was widely hated by black Americans after he killed George Floyd. Once he was convicted black Americans . . . felt pretty much the same about him as they did before the verdict was handed down.
There are several states still pursuing Trump's Fake Electors Plot (See Wikipedia Summary) Some of them will not be tried until 2025. Trump is named as an unindicted co conspirator in them. Sounds like a few still may charge Donald.
Question: if a person with a felony conviction cannot join the military. How can a felon become the commander in chief in 2025?
Comments
Politico has an article this morning that says Trump's first chance at appeal is with New York's First Justice Department's appellate court. Politico calls the court the 13th juror. It will probably be looking at the theory the prosecutors used in making two misdemeanors into one felony--in so many words.
That’s the thing about floating voters. They float.
While I agree with @Crœsos point about who is traditionally more likely to vote Republican, the question was about who is more likely to riot over the Trump verdict and sentencing. Looking at the people who rioted on January 6, they appeared to be middle class (largely white) people who feared they were losing their social status due to economic pressures.
@stetson, your illustration of a used car dealer from Wyoming is a case in point. Assuming the person is male--could be a female, too--he really would have nothing to lose, except for a little bit of time tied up in federal court if he got charged. Wyoming is one of the reddest states in the union. He is not going to lose any customers for his participation in any disturbance on Trump's behalf. He likely will believe his participation in a Trump free for all will be thrown out of a court or nullified if the case is tried in Wyoming.
In other words, it will be little skin off his back.
I agree with your analysis of the demographics of most January 6 rioters. They seem to be what has been described as "Buddy Garrity Republicans", named after a fictional character in the American television series Friday Night Lights. Like your Wyoming example, Garrity is a car dealer, though he lives in Texas.
In other words, someone without a college degree who is nonetheless in the upper two income quintiles.
Where I disagree is with your last four words. The grievance that seem to fuel Trump supporters aren't primarily economic but social. They no longer receive the automatic deference they feel is owed them as white people (and, increasingly, as straight people). People whose existence they once could use as evidence of their own innate superiority are increasingly accepted as peers in society and they don't like it.
Now, I am not a lawyer but I am confident that I am correct.* NY, like all legal systems descended from English Law have quite clear demarcation. Juries find fact. Appeals Courts deal with law.
For an appeals court to quash a conviction, there needs to be very strong evidence that the jury got it wrong. In English Courts, they will often not hear a case in the absence of new evidence. The evidence that Trump did it is very, very strong so that I cannot see.
The legal angle is that the conviction could be reversed if the judge made an error which affected the jury's ability to come to a fair verdict or got the law wrong. Having read some experts in NY law, I just cannot see this. It's true that some salacious evidence was allowed which could be considered prejudicial (as not necessarily directly relevant). However, that evidence became relevant because of the defence Trump insisted on. So I doubt that he would be reversed. Moreover, it is categorically true that Trump was granted more latitude and consideration than any defendant ever. Quite the opposite of his pathetic whining.
As to the legal construction that made the misdemeanours into felonies, there is case law that shows these convictions were previously upheld.
I cannot see a successful NY appeal. At all.
As to SCOTUS, well. AIUI, in state matters, SCOTUS can only intervene when the State has breached the felon's constitution rights (that's not quite true, but close enough). No rational analysis would support this but with this SC, it is just possible. I think unlikely but it shouldn't even be entertained as a possibility.
AFZ
*I am sure that any actual lawyers here will correct me, if I got any part wrong. Please do.
The italicized part is where I would disagree. Like I said, there might be a few propertied individuals who believe that they can break serious federal laws and get off totally scot-free because a Trump victory is 100% guaranteed in November, but I don't see there being enough of them at this point to pull off another 1/6, much less co-ordinated attacks nationwide.
I'm also gonna speculate that, even in a sympathetic state(*), being charged with federal crimes is a little more of an inconvenience than having to show up in traffic-court for a speeding ticket. You're gonna have to pay a lawyer, post bail, obey bail conditions etc.
(*) And have there been alot of cases of 1/6ers in red-state being acquitted by sympathetic juries? Can't say I've heard of many, or at least none where the acquittals were outrageous relative to the facts presented in court.
You mean because Trump denied having sex with Ms. Daniels?
With regard to reviewing evidence, an appellate court can only vacate the jury’s verdict if it determines, after a review of the entire record, that there was no competent evidence to support the jury’s verdict. That is to say, the appellate court cannot (at least not without violating well-established judicial boundaries) substitute its view of the evidence for the jury’s. The jury not only heard all the evidence, but was able to observe and make judgments about the witnesses giving that evidence. An appellate court doesn’t have that ability. The appellate court is bound by the verdict unless there is no competent evidence to support it.
That means that even if 99 witnesses give an abundance of compelling testimony that the defendant didn’t commit the crime and only one witness offers testimony from which it can be determined that the defendant did commit the crime, if the jury believes the one witness over the 99, the appellate court is bound by that. That is, as long as the testimony of the one witness was properly admissible evidence.
The other thing an appellate court can do is order a new trial if it determines that an error occurred at trial that deprived the defendant of a fair trial. As a general rule, for a new trial to be ordered, it must be shown that but for the error, the jury likely would have reached a different verdict. If that can’t be shown, the error is generally considered “harmless.”
Of course, there could also be appellate issues regarding things like the sufficiency of the indictment (did it adequately let Trump know what he needed to defend himself against?), or aspects of sentencing.
The smart thing for Trump’s defense would have been to stipulate that he had sex with Stormy Daniels, which would meant no need for testimony to prove he did, so she never would have been in a position to testify about the details. But from all accounts, Trump insisted that the defense be that she was lying.
According to at least some reports I heard when Stormy Daniels testified, she gave at least some of that salacious testimony without any objection from defense counsel. If that is indeed the case, they may have waived the ability to argue on appeal that the evidence was improper or unduly prejudicial.
As to Ms Daniels' testimony, I have read detailed observations by experts who were present. They agreed with both your points.
As I said, I cannot see any reversal by NY courts.
And, if I'm honest, I can't see even this ridiculous Supreme Court getting involved.
To me the unanswered question is will he get a custodial sentence?
It's a class E felony (I'm told, the lowest). He's a non-violent offender. On the other side is Trump's behaviour and lack of contrition throughout and the fact that a fine is realistically no penalty at all. Anyone know the sentencing rules that apply here?
AFZ
Yes, I can agree both economic and racial privileges work hand in hand.
@stetson
Regarding the hypothetical used car dealer in Wyoming, I wrote he may believe his participation in a Trump free for all may be thrown out or nullified if the case is tried in Wyoming.
Your response
Did you read @Crœsos description of a similar hypothetical used car dealer in Texas?
There just might be more than a few propertied individuals in deep read states that think they can make the sacrifice for their dear leader if they assume he will bail him out when the becomes the president again.
They really do not have to have coordinated attacks to throw wrenches in the system. Even one or two individuals trying to hunt the jurors down to deal with them throws the sanctity of the judicial system in question. An attack on local federal offices is not out of the question.
You can bet the big propertied individuals, like oil executives, will not get involved. But it is people like Joe, the Plumber (now deceased) who challenged Obama, to get involved in a Trump action because they have little to lose.
It's my understanding that possible penalties range anywhere from community service or a suspended sentence up through four year's imprisonment. In addition to the factors you mention, Felonious Trump is also (legally speaking) a first time offender and, since he'll be 78 next month, he's old enough to be considered a "vulnerable prisoner". Both of these are usually considered mitigating factors when it comes to sentencing, but given the contempt that convicted felon Donald Trump has shown for the legal system I have no guess as to where this would place him within the sentencing system.
Less likely than last time. I'm a true liberal Nick. The world doesn't go according to my privilege. Enough minorities should think, 'Hey, he's one of us!'.
Should they? Can you unpack that a little, along with an explanation about who the fuck are you to tell minorities what they "should" do?
The only minority that would think he is one of them is the low class white minority who think the world has passed them by and are afraid of losing their white privilege status
Democrats. Fair 96% unfair 4%
Independents. Fair 56% unfair 44%
Republicans. Fair 14% unfair 86%
These are from memory. I may be a couple of percentage points out here or there.
An illustration of the polarisation of US society? The overall averages were very close to the Independents’ figures.
I haven’t seen any breakdown for the swing states.
Again, I'm not clear on what you're trying to say here. In what way is Donald Trump, a man who lives in a gilded palace, signalling that he's dispossessed or deprived (or black or Hispanic)?
I am someone who would vote for Biden in November no matter what, but I am open-minded enough to listen to arguments that the trial might have been unfair, especially given that the prosecutor serves as an elected official in a heavily Democratic city(*).
And I did, in fact, hear a few credible-sounding arguments to the effect that the case against Trump was on shaky ground. Now, I eventually heard what sounded like credible defenses of the trial, but I suppose if I had answered a poll in the period of time between hearing the criticism and the defense, AND if I wasn't trying to swing the poll in a partisan direction, I might have answered like the 4% did.
Because 'The Man' finds them all guilty?
And what @Lamb Chopped said.
I don't think significant numbers of Blacks and Hispanics will be dumb enough to think "Gee, our people get framed by the legal system, and Trump says he was framed, so I guess that means Trump is one of us."
Dumb? On the same spectrum as Clinton's human scum.
I believe the term she used was "deplorables". And I don't think too many of them were drawn to Trump because they had personal histories of being persecuted by cops and the legal system.
Anti-populism is always a tightrope, because in attacking a demagogue for being demagogic, it's easy to slip into attacking the ordinary voters who are being demagoged. Like if Pepsi were to run ads saying "Can you believe all those idiots who drink Coke? Don't be like them."
Mind you, Obama did manage to get away with describing rural conservatives as "cling[ing] to their Gods and their guns" in 2008. Maybe because that invokes a fairly specific image that even many religious gun-owners don't think references them(*). Or perhaps Obama just didn't have the same pre-existing rep for obnoxiousness that had accrued, fairly or otherwise, to Hillary Clinton over the years.
(*) For example, a centrist, Episcopalian Manhattan lawyer with a couple of hunting-rifles he keeps up at his lodge in Vermont is not going to visualize Obama's caricature as himself. More like the villains from Deliverance.
And then doubled down by asking that half to look at the other half.
“When they go low, we go high”.
Given the current polarisation, however, there is even confusion over what is low and what is high. It’s very hard for me personally to see the current levels of social incohesion. And fear the outcome.
I watched MTG insult and accuse Dr Fauci yesterday and had little difficulty in seeing the wrongness of her behaviour. I thought it was an abuse of her privilege. And the assertion of lies as truth.
Her supporters see otherwise. Isn’t she, and aren’t they, just wrong?
That's true, and it would apply in a case where members of marginalized groups are supporting a right-wing politician, and getting criticized by upper-class liberals, who fail to take into account that some of the marginalized might have logical reasons for supporting him. Example: if a lot of racialized people work in a factory faced with closure, and the racist mayor wants to keep the factory open, some racialized people might put their objections to the racism aside, and vote for the mayor, however much that might outrage upper-class progressives who aren't themselves faced with looming unemployment.
But you haven't shown that there are any significant numbers of Black people being drawn into Trump's camp out of fraternal sympathy with his alleged mistreatment by the legal system. The only evidence is Trump's own claims that that is happening, which I take with a grain of salt.
I think the closest she's been credibly quoted as saying is "basket of deplorables". You can find the video clip on YouTube.
Pretty sure nothing exists demonstrating that she called anyone "human scum".
Damned if I know! I had half an ear to the TV, knew Trump had said it, saw a clip of Hillary Clinton and swear, obviously completely wrongly, that she used it first.
I apologise to Ms. Clinton. But she was still absurdly foolish in her abuse of privilege.
@Barnabas62, conservatives enshrine abuse of privilege.
What do you mean by "abuse of privilege"? What evidence can you show to support your statement?
What @HarryCH said.
And the evidence is what she said. And regretted. Because it cost her the presidency.
Hillary made the "basket of deplorables" comment at an LGBT fundraiser in New York. That is, I believe it was at an event to raise funds for her campaign from donors in the LGBT community. US politicians often are caught saying things at fundraisers to donors that they wouldn't otherwise say especially if they do not know they are being recorded. Hillary DID know that her speech was being filmed, though, so she had not fully let her guard down, but even at fundraisers with cameras politicians often try to get on donor's good side by acting like they are letting them in on what they "really think" or on an "insider's view". They want the donors to feel like they are getting something out of all the money they spent to attend the event and be near the candidate.
Hillary also probably felt like Trump had no chance of winning (the polls made it look this way for most of the race) and felt that she should focus on fundraising as much if not more than on campaigning in order to have the money to make her victory and the victory of other Democrats overwhelming - there was talk of Democrats sweeping the map and winning in deep red Republican territory.
Members of Congress have complained that the one thing they spend the time on more than anything else is calling donors. It really makes it hard for US politicians to set their priorities straight.
Not all. Enshrining abuse of privilege is a sign of both ignorance and arrogance and those vices are not confined to folks with a particular political outlook. They are much more widespread. Humility is relatively rare these days.
It seems incredibly racist to just assume that all black and Hispanic Americans are all such dedicated criminals that they will automatically admire anyone convicted of a felony involving financial fraud. It seems contrary to the evidence. Bernie Madoff and Sam Bankman-Fried, convicted of crimes similar to Mr. Trump's, are not folk heroes to black or Hispanic Americans. Derek Chauvin was widely hated by black Americans after he killed George Floyd. Once he was convicted black Americans . . . felt pretty much the same about him as they did before the verdict was handed down.
Question: if a person with a felony conviction cannot join the military. How can a felon become the commander in chief in 2025?