|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 31 2024 15:14 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2024 07:39 StasisField wrote:On May 31 2024 07:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 31 2024 07:23 Simberto wrote:
So, what does that mean? Does he actually go to prison now? Guilty of 34 felonies sounds like stuff you would go to prison for? Or is this another of these things where it turns out it has basically no real consequences? Sentencing is July 11th. Up to 4 years in prison (per charge? or total? not sure), but I doubt he'll actually go to jail. These crimes are usually served concurrently so if he gets time he would get at most 4 years. I'm thinking he'll either get probation or he'll do house arrest for a few months. He could still walk away with just a fine though. I don't envy the judge. Give him just a fine, and the story will be that the rich and powerful can do whatever they want and get away with a scolding. Give him house arrest and/or jail and people will yell it's election tampering, not to mention the logistical nightmare it would be to actually try to jail Trump.
I reckon he'll get a fine and some community service.
|
Northern Ireland26355 Posts
On May 31 2024 06:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2024 06:16 micronesia wrote:
Maybe Blackjack was referring to the Trumpist plan for how to punish the jury? Very dark, but I hear they have a pro-Pence-ity for that kind of thing.
Excellent work
|
On May 31 2024 15:41 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2024 15:14 Acrofales wrote:On May 31 2024 07:39 StasisField wrote:On May 31 2024 07:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 31 2024 07:23 Simberto wrote:
So, what does that mean? Does he actually go to prison now? Guilty of 34 felonies sounds like stuff you would go to prison for? Or is this another of these things where it turns out it has basically no real consequences? Sentencing is July 11th. Up to 4 years in prison (per charge? or total? not sure), but I doubt he'll actually go to jail. These crimes are usually served concurrently so if he gets time he would get at most 4 years. I'm thinking he'll either get probation or he'll do house arrest for a few months. He could still walk away with just a fine though. I don't envy the judge. Give him just a fine, and the story will be that the rich and powerful can do whatever they want and get away with a scolding. Give him house arrest and/or jail and people will yell it's election tampering, not to mention the logistical nightmare it would be to actually try to jail Trump. I reckon he'll get a fine and some community service.
Fine I could see. I doubt he'll get community service. He wouldn't last an hour or two handing soup out to the poors or whatever.
Realistically, house arrest on a schedule (weekends? Every Monday or Tuesday?), without internet access is probably the absolute most I would expect.
|
On May 31 2024 07:23 Simberto wrote:
So, what does that mean? Does he actually go to prison now? Guilty of 34 felonies sounds like stuff you would go to prison for? Or is this another of these things where it turns out it has basically no real consequences? its 34 felonies but they are class E felonies which is the lowest level and non violent for a first time offender, as far as the law is concerned.
I wouldn't expect to much from the sentence.
|
On May 31 2024 16:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2024 06:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 31 2024 06:16 micronesia wrote:
Maybe Blackjack was referring to the Trumpist plan for how to punish the jury? Very dark, but I hear they have a pro-Pence-ity for that kind of thing. Excellent work
Thanks! I'm pretty proud of that one.
|
Yeah the level of gravitas I'm applying to the sentencing is about the same as a rockstar being convicted of getting high and punching a fan. Anyone that thought the rockstar was a douche will continue to think that rockstar is a douche, and the rest will continue with things like "Yeah but I kinda like their music" or "That fan was being a dick" etc. I don't think this is the thing that will change any minds.
|
On May 31 2024 17:30 Fleetfeet wrote:
Yeah the level of gravitas I'm applying to the sentencing is about the same as a rockstar being convicted of getting high and punching a fan. Anyone that thought the rockstar was a douche will continue to think that rockstar is a douche, and the rest will continue with things like "Yeah but I kinda like their music" or "That fan was being a dick" etc. I don't think this is the thing that will change any minds.
I dunno man.
With the rockstar, people who don't really have an opinion aren't going to be asked to give a vote on whether or not he's a douche.
I think there's going to be a reasonably big group, even in America, who would lean slightly towards Trump but for whom a felony conviction is a line they won't cross.
|
On May 31 2024 17:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2024 17:30 Fleetfeet wrote:
Yeah the level of gravitas I'm applying to the sentencing is about the same as a rockstar being convicted of getting high and punching a fan. Anyone that thought the rockstar was a douche will continue to think that rockstar is a douche, and the rest will continue with things like "Yeah but I kinda like their music" or "That fan was being a dick" etc. I don't think this is the thing that will change any minds. I dunno man. With the rockstar, people who don't really have an opinion aren't going to be asked to give a vote on whether or not he's a douche. I think there's going to be a reasonably big group, even in America, who would lean slightly towards Trump but for whom a felony conviction is a line they won't cross.
I think there were some polls taken a little while ago, which had concluded that something like 10-20% of Republican voters said they wouldn't vote for a convicted felon... but I don't believe that. Given how deeply they've already bought into the pro-Trump conspiracy, I imagine that nearly every Trump supporter will have some sort of excuse for why this verdict doesn't change their mind about voting for Trump in November.
If Biden wins in a landslide, then maybe Trump's felony convictions played a role in it, but I don't think that either side should be supremely confident before Election Day. I still maintain that the election will likely be a coinflip, coming down to a few key swing states again.
|
Norway28760 Posts
On May 31 2024 17:30 Fleetfeet wrote:
Yeah the level of gravitas I'm applying to the sentencing is about the same as a rockstar being convicted of getting high and punching a fan. Anyone that thought the rockstar was a douche will continue to think that rockstar is a douche, and the rest will continue with things like "Yeah but I kinda like their music" or "That fan was being a dick" etc. I don't think this is the thing that will change any minds.
This article sheds some light on the impact, I guess.
Essentially, most voters will not be swayed in any way. But Narrow slivers of Republicans – 10 percent – and independent voters – 11 percent – said they would be less likely to vote for Trump if he is found guilty.
Now, less likely does not mean they won't vote for him. But, it's fair to assume that some subset of those 10% and those 11% will now not vote for Trump in the general election. The ones who are not affected were already voting for him anyway. With how competitive the race is, this can absolutely be the element that turns the whole election to Biden. (In the same way the last Comey statement about Hillary might have been the element that made too many people stay home, leading to her losing vs Trump in 2016.)
At the same time, there's this quinnipac poll claiming that 6% of Trump voters would be less likely to vote for him while 24% would be more likely to vote for him in the light of a conviction. Tbh, I'm inclined to think that those 24% were already really likely to vote for him and that those 6% were already more likely to be fence-sitters, so those numbers don't necessarily mean much.
Anyway, in a race with thin margins, anything that can move the needle 1-2 percentage points might be the tipping point. Even if this isn't a big deal to most people, it might be just that.
|
Maybe I'm giving people too much credit then...
|
On May 31 2024 16:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2024 07:23 Simberto wrote:
So, what does that mean? Does he actually go to prison now? Guilty of 34 felonies sounds like stuff you would go to prison for? Or is this another of these things where it turns out it has basically no real consequences? its 34 felonies but they are class E felonies which is the lowest level and non violent for a first time offender, as far as the law is concerned. I wouldn't expect to much from the sentence.
So, we are still far from any consequences ever happening to that criminal. Seems like we have been in this state for years now.
Being rich must be really nice.
|
Here in the UK, Boris Johnson's government collapsed because they breached lockdown rules on gatherings.
Over in the US, Donald Trump will remain a major player in politics despite much worse criminality.
American politics could really use some decorum.
|
Now that the verdict has been reached, is Trump's gag order lifted? Or does it remain until after sentencing, or up until his appeal starts, or until some other time?
|
From the coverage in the UK, I'm getting the feeling that alot of political commentators are celebrating the decision, but very sheepishly. Its as if he really shouldn't have been found guilty based on the evidence, but his legal team had such a terrible defense that the jurors convicted him almost by default. That's the impression I'm getting anyway.
|
On May 31 2024 19:55 Jockmcplop wrote:
From the coverage in the UK, I'm getting the feeling that alot of political commentators are celebrating the decision, but very sheepishly. Its as if he really shouldn't have been found guilty based on the evidence, but his legal team had such a terrible defense that the jurors convicted him almost by default. That's the impression I'm getting anyway.
There were audio recordings of Trump and written confirmations by Trump, admitting to the crimes, and multiple people corroborated exactly what Trump did. The legal team's defense was terrible, but that was because Trump committed the crimes, and Trump certainly wouldn't have been able to take the stand without digging himself into an even deeper hole.
|
On May 31 2024 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2024 19:55 Jockmcplop wrote:
From the coverage in the UK, I'm getting the feeling that alot of political commentators are celebrating the decision, but very sheepishly. Its as if he really shouldn't have been found guilty based on the evidence, but his legal team had such a terrible defense that the jurors convicted him almost by default. That's the impression I'm getting anyway. There were audio recordings of Trump and written confirmations by Trump, admitting to the crimes, and multiple people corroborated exactly what Trump did. The legal team's defense was terrible, but that was because Trump committed the crimes, and Trump certainly wouldn't have been able to take the stand without digging himself into an even deeper hole.
Was he admitting to interfering with the election though?
The consensus from the (admittedly tiny) sample of things I've read about the case is that the judge was overreaching slightly with the election interference charges, and that the defense should have pushed that point rather than ignoring it completely.
I believe there's some technicality and grey areas when it comes to the actual charges brought against Trump, rather than simply whether or not he committed crimes.
|
On May 31 2024 20:07 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2024 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 31 2024 19:55 Jockmcplop wrote:
From the coverage in the UK, I'm getting the feeling that alot of political commentators are celebrating the decision, but very sheepishly. Its as if he really shouldn't have been found guilty based on the evidence, but his legal team had such a terrible defense that the jurors convicted him almost by default. That's the impression I'm getting anyway. There were audio recordings of Trump and written confirmations by Trump, admitting to the crimes, and multiple people corroborated exactly what Trump did. The legal team's defense was terrible, but that was because Trump committed the crimes, and Trump certainly wouldn't have been able to take the stand without digging himself into an even deeper hole. Was he admitting to interfering with the election though? The consensus from the (admittedly tiny) sample of things I've read about the case is that the judge was overreaching slightly with the election interference charges, and that the defense should have pushed that point rather than ignoring it completely. I believe there's some technicality and grey areas when it comes to the actual charges brought against Trump, rather than simply whether or not he committed crimes.
Trump never says things like "Hi my name is Donald Trump and I am currently interfering with the election", but apparently what he said/did was obvious enough that a jury convicted him very quickly. Even that one juror who got his news from Truth Social and Twitter was convinced within two days.
|
On May 31 2024 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2024 19:55 Jockmcplop wrote:
From the coverage in the UK, I'm getting the feeling that alot of political commentators are celebrating the decision, but very sheepishly. Its as if he really shouldn't have been found guilty based on the evidence, but his legal team had such a terrible defense that the jurors convicted him almost by default. That's the impression I'm getting anyway. There were audio recordings of Trump and written confirmations by Trump, admitting to the crimes, and multiple people corroborated exactly what Trump did. The legal team's defense was terrible, but that was because Trump committed the crimes, and Trump certainly wouldn't have been able to take the stand without digging himself into an even deeper hole.
Well, the analyses I read were Trump's legal team trying to discredit the witnesses and failing miserably. While on the other hand, the prosecution piled on multiple different corroborating statements (and documents) showing Trump's guilt. If the defense had instead focused on some alternative version establishing how Trump might have committed tax fraud, but it had nothing to do with the election (or whatever else) he might've convinced the jury, but at the end of the day, they chose this legal strategy of trying to discredit witnesses, and it was terrible. And yes, a lot of the reason is because he's guilty of all of it, and there is extensive documentation of all of that guilt. Sure, Cohen might be a lying scumbag, but all you really have to believe from him is that he made those payments and that Trump ordered him to do so. For the former there is a paper trail, and for the latter there's a mountain of corroborating evidence that Cohen did this type of thing on Trump's order and was only authorized to do anything on Trump's specific orders.
|
On May 31 2024 20:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2024 20:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 31 2024 20:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 31 2024 19:55 Jockmcplop wrote:
From the coverage in the UK, I'm getting the feeling that alot of political commentators are celebrating the decision, but very sheepishly. Its as if he really shouldn't have been found guilty based on the evidence, but his legal team had such a terrible defense that the jurors convicted him almost by default. That's the impression I'm getting anyway. There were audio recordings of Trump and written confirmations by Trump, admitting to the crimes, and multiple people corroborated exactly what Trump did. The legal team's defense was terrible, but that was because Trump committed the crimes, and Trump certainly wouldn't have been able to take the stand without digging himself into an even deeper hole. Was he admitting to interfering with the election though? The consensus from the (admittedly tiny) sample of things I've read about the case is that the judge was overreaching slightly with the election interference charges, and that the defense should have pushed that point rather than ignoring it completely. I believe there's some technicality and grey areas when it comes to the actual charges brought against Trump, rather than simply whether or not he committed crimes. Trump never says things like "Hi my name is Donald Trump and I am currently interfering with the election", but apparently what he said/did was obvious enough that a jury convicted him very quickly. Even that one juror who got his news from Truth Social and Twitter was convinced within two days.
I'm just sort of relaying what I've found from good sources online... For example, from the BBC:
The prosecution used meticulous documentation to show falsified business records, but the evidence that Trump actually intended to commit or conceal that all-important second crime was “thin to nonexistent”, Randall Eliason, a professor at George Washington University Law School, told the BBC.
Trump’s team did not focus on hammering this weakness, though in his summation, Mr Blanche gave the jury a list of reasons for reasonable doubt. Instead, they argued that the central events of the case never happened, or that witnesses had lied.
But the jury may have found these claims were not supported by later evidence and testimony.
Mr Eliason said a more effective defence would have been: “Assume for the sake of argument all of this happened. The sex happened, the hush-money happened, and Trump knew about it. Fine. That’s not what the charges are. What’s the evidence of Trump’s actual intent and knowledge? That’s where the case falls short.’”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c288wpj1glyo
From what I've seen, the feeling is that Trump didn't want to admit to doing a single thing that could be seen as wrong, so he hamstrung his own defense.
|
Thanks for the elaborations, Jockmcplop and Acrofales. It definitely sounds like the defense could have done a better job, even with the hand they were dealt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
