Honestly I can't understand why the "hush money" is all the rage. THIS is the crime that would put ANY other American into a supermax. This isn't justice.
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
politics
19121 readers
3981 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The hush money one is the first one to actually go to trial, so it's mostly that. The documents case is basically suppressed until they can somehow get rid of this judge, and the other 2 cases are also being held up in places.
The hush money case isn't likely to put him in prison though, I don't think there's any precedent of a politician going to prison for that. And of course there's going to be appeals that can easily push it until past November.
And it is going to get overturned on appeal. It was an obvious political trial with a judge that donated to Biden, his daughter was bringing in millions because of the trial and the prosecutor ran for office pledging to take down Trump. That's why Trumps bringing in record donations from small donors now.
Absolute dumbass commentary. The jury decided the case, not the judge. Trump literally had no defense to the allegations other than bald denials. The evidence that he did the crimes was written in paper and undeniable.
You're just buying everything the MSM is selling, hook line & sinker. They wouldn't let Trump have much of a defense. They wouldn't even let an expert witness testify for the defense. And sure, the jury decides the case based on the instructions given by the judge and this is the only time a judge has ever given instructions like the ones in this case. You really don't know much about the justice system if you believe that the judge in a case doesn't play a major role in how a case is decided.
Where are you getting information from?
I read the instructions, so I guess the judge in this case
No, that's not correct. You are receiving delusional propaganda about disallowing expert witnesses from somewhere. Where is that from?
Bradley Smith was definitely allowed to testify as an expert, but the defense declined to call him. Here, since you like pretending to have read things direct from the court. He was not allowed to show up and instruct the jury, which is the same as decided in the prior cited cases in NY and OH.
Where is your delusional propaganda from? The things you are claiming are lies that Donald has been tweeting. So perhaps your delusions are coming direct from the source: a lifelong con man and fraud who committed election interference in 2016.
"I direct you back to page three of my decision," Merchan said, reiterating that Brad Smith could testify as to what the FEC is, its purpose, background, what laws if any FEC is responsible for enforcing and general definitions and terms that relate to this case, including contribution and expenditure. So he was only allowed to testify the definition, purpose, and backround of the FEC which would be pointless really.
Here, just read Brad Smiths own words and you'll see why the defense didn't call him. The judge wouldn't let him explain the law...he would only let him give a general definition.....https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/key-trump-witness-nixed-after-merchans-stringent-rulings-reveals-what-his-testimony-would-have-been/ar-BB1mNALM
What's it like living in your world?
You Americans are fucking wild right now. I hope you have a civil war to sort this shit out proper, like you did with slavery.
Yeah, that won't happen, they've got such a stranglehold on surveillance in this country, it would never get off the ground and things are just going to get worse. Most younger people and some older people to either keep their face buried into their phones on Facebook or Tiktok propaganda machines or they just buy into everything the MSM tells them so until we fix that stuff there's really no hope of things getting better
You still never shared what website you get your information and news from.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Don’t a lot of people run for office on a platform of arresting and convicting people who commit crimes, though? Or am I missing something?
No, they run on stopping actual crime, not going after a particular person
You mean like the crime of selling classified documents for money?
Yeah, you mean the classified documents Biden took as a Senator and sold them to his book writer?
The "hush money" framing is such a cutesy, bullshit spin to neuter the actual repeated and unapologetic fraud here. Basic human and business ethics concerns to side for a moment, It's purely fraud against the American people without remorse and it's actual election interference.
You wouldn't say that a serial killer that stabs and kills their victims is on trial for "night night pokes". How was this allowed to get casually accepted like this without challenge from society?
Can you expand more on the election interference part?
Totally understand inciting an insurrection to be interference, but using campaign funds to manage public relations problems seems a legitimate use.
So the falsifying is the illegal bit.
The rest of the tweet is moralising.
Yeah, if he was upfront about things then there would be no criminal case
However saying he set up shell companies to carry out falsification isn’t moralising
Writing "disgusting transactions" is moralistic.
Doesn't help to win over Republicans.
I don't think anyone is still naive enough to think you can win over Republicunts. The way to stop Trump is to battle voter apathy and tear down barriers to vote, because the majority will not vote for Trump if they get to cast their votes.
I read somewhere that higher voter turnout in general benefits Trump (like in 2016).
^(People should still vote though)
I can find both opinions: Helps Trump / helps Biden, so probably nobody the fuck knows. I am still sure that the reason Trump won in 2016 was too many Democrat voters being put off by Clinton + the "Bernie Bro" crowd staying home.
Agreed.
I would add that some Trump supporters would possibly have been persuaded to vote for Bernie.
Others here have addressed your assertions
Others here have rejected those assertions.
I have no idea if that statement is true. I just wanted to illustrate how unhelpful your comment was.
Your tactics here are extremely transparent.
My only tactic in this particular thread branch is to encourage you make more effort with your replies.
Sea lion has gotta sea lion.
Others here have addressed your assertions
Is a vacuous comment.
That was not the legal issue of the case, though. Campaigns have to be very transparent with how they spend contributions, for obvious reasons, and it was easy to prove that this appropriation was obfuscated.
Ah, so it was the obfuscation itself. What was obfuscated is irrelevant.
using campaign funds to manage public relations problems seems a legitimate use
It is.
What he did was try to hide payments made to benefit his campaign. Would you consider illegally financing a campaign to be election interference?
Not just the financing, but hiding the Stormy Daniels story during the election. They were using the National Enquirer (yes, I know) to promote Trump, make up stories to bring down his opponents, and hide the Stormy Daniels story (which was needed when the "grab them by the pussy" video leak caused chaos and arguably almost sunk the campaign). THAT'S where the election interference came into play.
They were using the National Enquirer (yes, I know) to promote Trump, make up stories to bring down his opponents, and hide the Stormy Daniels story (which was needed when the "grab them by the pussy" video leak caused chaos and arguably almost sunk the campaign)
Isn't this part a normal election strategy in the US? And not illegal itself?
Honestly, I'm not sure how exactly the law is written. I believe that was a factor out of several that raised the misdemeanor of falsification into a felony (by doing so to conceal a crime). The judge's instructions to the jury was that they needed to be unanimous that a crime was being concealed, but they didn't have to agree on which one(s). Unless some members of the jury go to the media (for their sake, I sure hope they don't) and that gets brought up, we'll probably never know which way that wind was blowing.
Thanks.
In the future I'm sure politicians on all sides will be paying people to keep certain facts quiet. I was just trying to confirm what is legal and what is illegal.
Those complaints filed since May 16 “appear to be part of an orchestrated campaign,” according to Pryor, whose appellate court reviews cases arising from federal district courts in Florida, Georgia and Alabama.
Well, yeah. Any kind of change requires a coordinated effort to get enough attention for something to happen.
True but if we switched sides here for a moment the left would be yelling foul play and I'm a Democrat. Just lots of visible hypocrisy
The other side already sends death threats and is calling for a war over a conviction against Trump by a jury of their peers. I dunno if I'd be that concerned about their take on hypocrisy.
When Republicans make a concerted effort , they call for violence against their opponents. When Democrats do it, they write strongly worded letters.
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›