This time next year, President Trump moves back into the Whitehouse...

[DefTrap]

Lolz - as part of his speech post verdict he claims that the US is being overrun by millions of prisoners, mentals and immigrants. What a guy.

We think that UK politics is bad but at least the UK has the concept of leadership selection and deselection, whereby folk in prominent positions who are iffy can be sidelined so that the celebrity sideshow aspect is limited and you can concentrate on policies. This is farcical. Neither he nor Biden should be within a country mile of leadership.

[ZRX61]

Here it is.

As a reminder, Donald Trump's team say they are planning to appeal against the verdicts. But on what basis?

The evidence of Stormy Daniels, whose alleged sexual encounter with Trump was at the heart of the case, could be one reason.

“The level of detail that was provided [by Daniels] is really not necessary to the telling of the story," says Anna Cominsky, a professor at New York Law School.

The novel legal strategy taken by the district attorney in this case may also provide grounds for appeal.

Falsifying business records can be a lower-level misdemeanour in New York, but Trump faced more serious felony charges because of a supposed second crime - an illegal attempt to influence the 2016 election.

Prosecutors broadly alleged that violations of federal and state election laws, along with tax fraud, applied to this case. But they did not specify to the jury exactly which one was broken.

Legal experts say there are questions around the scope and application of the federal law, which could form a basis for appeal. Never before has a state prosecutor invoked an uncharged federal crime, and there’s a question if the Manhattan District Attorney had the jurisdiction to do so.

Two awkward facts:
The pay off wasn't illegal.
The pay off happened AFTER he'd won the election. You can't influence an election after it's already happened.

The judge & prosecutors repeatedly said the pay off was illegal, that alone is grounds for a mistrial

[ZRX61]

Lolz - as part of his speech post verdict he claims that the US is being overrun by millions of prisoners, mentals and immigrants. What a guy.

7 million illegals under Biden, fuck knows how many homeless nutters running around the streets attacking people, also, countless perps let go after violent crimes owing to "cashless bail", so yes it actually is "millions".
Just this week the cops here have arrested a nutter for attempted kidnapping of a child.. who was arrested & given a Diversion Program for the exact same crime in March. Another has just been charged with murder after one of the two women he stabbed died from her injuries. There are multiple people attacked by homeless nutters on trains & buses in LA every week.

Turns out if you don't charge people with the crimes they actually commit, you can claim the crime rate is decreasing.

Edit:
Today's news involves a homeless nutter living in the bushes at the side of a freeway throwing rocks at traffic, several puncture on cars & a bloke knocked off his motorcycle in a shower of sparks (there's video of that).

Dunno if the link will work in the UK:
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/man-to ... cle-crash/

[ZRX61]

Nice to see that the US Justice system can see right through the bullshit. That is unanimous, completely. And for the jury to reach that decision on 34 counts, in a couple of days shows exactly how damning the prosecution’s evidence was and how bad the defence was, they had nothing, tried attacking people rather than the evidence because they couldn't, it was too strong.

I'm not even sure what grounds he'd appeal on? they're saying that SD's evidence was too explicit? I think it was Cohen and Pekers testimony that really sealed it. Well, that and the fact that Trump is basically a lying, cheating, fraudster

You're missing the fact that for him to be guilty of the 34 counts, the pay off itself would have had to be illegal. Pay offs aren't illegal, but the jury was told they are. The defense wasn't allowed to state that paying off Stormy wasn't illegal.

[ZRX61]

Trumps campaign raked in almost $100Million since the verdict..

[irie]

6

Nice to see that the US Justice system can see right through the bullshit. That is unanimous, completely. And for the jury to reach that decision on 34 counts, in a couple of days shows exactly how damning the prosecution’s evidence was and how bad the defence was, they had nothing, tried attacking people rather than the evidence because they couldn't, it was too strong.

I'm not even sure what grounds he'd appeal on? they're saying that SD's evidence was too explicit? I think it was Cohen and Pekers testimony that really sealed it. Well, that and the fact that Trump is basically a lying, cheating, fraudster

You're missing the fact that for him to be guilty of the 34 counts, the pay off itself would have had to be illegal. Pay offs aren't illegal, but the jury was told they are. The defense wasn't allowed to state that paying off Stormy wasn't illegal.

My understanding is that Trump was not convicted of paying 'hush money' but instead was convicted of falsifying business records

[DefTrap]

Today's news involves a homeless nutter living in the bushes at the side of a freeway throwing rocks at traffic, several puncture on cars & a bloke knocked off his motorcycle in a shower of sparks (there's video of that).

A nutter then, no need to marginalise the homeless further - it's not helpful, it just furthers a us-and-them mentatility. And I've no idea why it should be in the first 90 seconds of the speech Trump made following his unanimous guilty verdict on all counts. Unless of course he's a bit of a nutter himself, was cock-sure he would be found innocent, and hadn't really planned a cogent 'losing' speech.

[cheb]

Much like not being able to get Al Capone on bootlegging etc charges so they got him for tax evasion instead, at least to me it is.

Whether that's a good or a bad thing I don't know.

[Saga Lout]

...at least the UK has the concept of leadership selection and deselection, whereby folk in prominent positions who are iffy can be sidelined...

So how do you explain Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak? I wouldn't trust any of them to run a whelk stall yet they all managed to avoid being sidelined before becoming Prime Minister.

[ZRX61]

My understanding is that Trump was not convicted of paying 'hush money' but instead was convicted of falsifying business records

Yes, but for him to have guilty of that, the pay off would have had to have been illegal. That's the part people seem to be missing.

He paid money to a lawyer, his accountant listed the payments as legal expenses. I'm not sure what else payments to a lawyer could have been called?

[ZRX61]

A nutter then, no need to marginalise the homeless further - it's not helpful, it just furthers a us-and-them mentatility. And I've no idea why it should be in the first 90 seconds of the speech Trump made following his unanimous guilty verdict on all counts. Unless of course he's a bit of a nutter himself, was cock-sure he would be found innocent, and hadn't really planned a cogent 'losing' speech.

No idea, I didn't listen to the speech.

& if someone is both a nutter AND homeless, WTF is wrong with stating that?

Would you prefer "homeless murderer" or "nutjob murderer" so we don't hurt the fuckers feelings?

[Slenver]

Trumps campaign raked in almost $100Million since the verdict..

That says appalling things about the state of modern Republicans.

[DefTrap]

& if someone is both a nutter AND homeless, WTF is wrong with stating that?

It's an unnecessary addition, intended to rouse the rabble, because homelessness is still one of the voiceless groups. Jewish nutter. Black murderer. British wanker (! ) you know how it works.

[DefTrap]

So how do you explain Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak? I wouldn't trust any of them to run a whelk stall yet they all managed to avoid being sidelined before becoming Prime Minister.

Being sidelined once you've taken power is a little more difficult innit. And both the Tories and Labour have messed with the theory recently by dredging the depths of leader competency so completely after a decade of party infighting. Corbyn was silly. May and Truss not up to the task. Boris a shambolic liar. I strongly believe Cameron would still be at the helm if he hadn't lost his marbles over Brexit.

[Cousin Jack]

My understanding is that Trump was not convicted of paying 'hush money' but instead was convicted of falsifying business records

Yes, but for him to have guilty of that, the pay off would have had to have been illegal. That's the part people seem to be missing.

He paid money to a lawyer, his accountant listed the payments as legal expenses. I'm not sure what else payments to a lawyer could have been called?

He paid from a business, and listed it as legal expenses.

Two points,
it wasn't legal expenses it was a bribe, paid via his lawyer.
and it wasn't a 'business expense, legal or otherwise. It was a bribe, and a personal bribe too.

Seems a cut and dried guilty to me.

[Sadlonelygit]

My understanding is that Trump was not convicted of paying 'hush money' but instead was convicted of falsifying business records

Yes, but for him to have guilty of that, the pay off would have had to have been illegal. That's the part people seem to be missing.

He paid money to a lawyer, his accountant listed the payments as legal expenses. I'm not sure what else payments to a lawyer could have been called?

Paying hush money to someone isn't illegal, however claiming it's a legal expense for a business transaction is false accounting, which is illegal.
I realise you don't want to see the inconvenient truth, but 12 people unanimously decided on the evidence submitted, by both sides, that beyond all reasonable doubt, DT falsified accounts, 34 times.

[ZRX61]

He paid from a business, and listed it as legal expenses.

Two points,
it wasn't legal expenses it was a bribe, paid via his lawyer.
and it wasn't a 'business expense, legal or otherwise. It was a bribe, and a personal bribe too.

Seems a cut and dried guilty to me.

What you listed were misdemeanors that the statue of limitations had passed.

Like I said, people are missing an important part:
To be guilty of the 34 charges he has to be guilty of the underlying crime.. which was paying off Stormie.. which is NOT illegal. He can't be guilty of an underlying crime if it's NOT a crime.

It's like you can't be charged with Dangerous Driving if you've been sat in front of the telly all day.. or being charged with DUI because you got shitfaced on Thursday, but haven't driven the car since Tuesday. In both cases, the underlying crime would be actually driving the vehicle.

[ZRX61]

Paying hush money to someone isn't illegal, however claiming it's a legal expense for a business transaction is false accounting, which is illegal.
I realise you don't want to see the inconvenient truth, but 12 people unanimously decided on the evidence submitted, by both sides, that beyond all reasonable doubt, DT falsified accounts, 34 times.

FFS, it's like talking to a fucking tree. The statute of limitations had already passed, he couldn't be charged with false accounting at the point Bragg filed charges.
& even if it happened just last week, it's STILL a misdemeanor, not a felony.

& lets not forget that testimony was withheld from the jury & both the prosecutor & Judge told the jury the pay off was illegal (that's in the transcript).
So you have a jury thinking he was guilty of an underlying crime which was never a crime. If they had been told the truth the charges would have been laughed out of court.

[Horse]

Lolz - as part of his speech post verdict ...

Far more interesting, or intriguing, are Melania & Ivanka's post-verdict statements

[irie]

My understanding is that Trump was not convicted of paying 'hush money' but instead was convicted of falsifying business records

Yes, but for him to have guilty of that, the pay off would have had to have been illegal. That's the part people seem to be missing.

He paid money to a lawyer, his accountant listed the payments as legal expenses. I'm not sure what else payments to a lawyer could have been called?

My understanding is that money was withdrawn from the company for a private personal matter but represented in company accounts as a bone fide company expense (ie as a legal expense). That the intermediary in the transaction happened to be a lawyer is not relevant.