The Real timschochet

Initial poll after the verdict not good for Trump: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-verdict-makes-significant-number-republicans-less-likely-support-him-poll.amp It’s early yet, though.

Supposed to have great casinos there.

Roger Daltry. OK Maybe not. But I’d vote for him.

You know, there is no force on Earth that could ever turn me into a Trump fan, but the fact that @weepaws doesn’t like him makes me at least consider it…

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/31/tech/threats-doxxing-trump-jurors/index.html

As to your first point we will find out in a year or so. As to your second point- I already addressed this in a previous post: Alvin Bragg certainly campaigned on prosecuting Donald Trump just as Rudy Giuliani campaigned on prosecuting John Gotti years ago. District Attorneys in New York are elected. Perhaps they shouldn’t be but that’s a separate debate. However your argument implies you believe that Bragg wanted to prosecute Trump because Trump is the Republican candidate for President. That’s not the case, IMO. I don’t think Bragg would have promised to prosecute Trump, or done so, unless he believed that Trump was actually a criminal. Furthermore I don’t believe the voters of NYC would have elected Bragg for such a campaign unless they also believed that Trump is a criminal. Lastly I don’t believe Trump would have been convicted by a jury of 12 unless they believed he was a criminal. You, and many other conservatives, have a cynicism for the whole process which I don’t share.

Hopefully they’ll change their minds.

Thanks but I can’t take credit for my kids believing in racial justice. But I’m proud that they do.

I certainly did during the George Floyd peaceful protests which my daughters participated in (not the riots which took place hours later and in which BLM was not involved.) I don’t regret it.

Pretty sure the odds are good that he won’t slam the judge in at least one of those three cases.

Both Biden and Trump raised a ton of money last night.

So are only sinless people allowed to attend church?

Well actually I think George is a better writer. This woman is not particularly compelling: 1. Her first point about the judge refusing to recuse himself misses the fact that Merchan actually submitted the question to a state ethics review board which unanimously determined there was no need for him to recuse. 2. Her second point, that Bragg campaigned on prosecuting Trump, is irrelevant because all district attorneys campaign on promises in terms of who they will prosecute. One could argue that this is a poor system and DAs should be appointed rather than run in elections and I might agree, but that is the system New York has had for over a century. (For example, Rudy Giuliani promised to prosecute John Gotti if elected and he did.) 3. After the two irrelevancies she finally gets to the main point that no state prosecutor has ever prosecuted a federal election crime in this manner. But she never offers any reasoning as to why this shouldn’t be done. As I just pointed out, doing something for the first time doesn’t make it wrong.

These are fair questions. Let me offer a layman’s answer based entirely on my albeit limited understanding of attorneys that I’ve watched and listened to on CNN and MSNBC: 1. There is a New York law that states that falsifying bank records can be a felony rather than a misdemeanor IF it’s done with the purpose of concealing another crime. 2. The law purposefully does not require the prosecutor to define what the crime is being concealed, only to determine that another crime was in fact being concealed. 3. Point #2 allows the prosecutor to offer the jury several different options as to exactly which crime is concealed- the jury needn’t pick between them, all they have to do is decide that at least one of the choices applies to this case. Thats what the law says and it’s the reason Bragg didn’t have to define what crime was being committed last year at the time of the indictment. It also means that, contrary to @Jon_mx’s claim, the judge acted properly by giving the jury choices to make. 4. In this case, despite several technical choices being offered, they all basically came down to the same thing- Trump falsified records in order to conceal that he was reimbursing Cohen for payments to Daniels that were made to conceal her affair with Trump from the public in order to help him win the election. That is some kind of election interference (there are several choices to choose from) which turns the falsifying business records from a misdemeanor to a felony. 5. Bragg’s decision to charge this sort of crime as a felony is a novel prosecution- it’s never been done before in terms of election interference. That’s the main reason some attorneys, even some liberal ones, believe this conviction will eventually be overturned. But other legal experts point out that the law is on the books and just because Bragg was the first to apply it doesn’t mean he was incorrect to do so. Again that is my limited understanding. If I got something wrong I’m sure somebody will correct me.

Yes. Amen. Thanks.

Where is this coming from?

Once again complaining that he wasn’t allowed to testify. Unreal. But I’m sure some of his followers will buy it.

Wow. He’s really gone.

Good morning. I’ve been highly skeptical that this verdict would make any difference in terms of the election. But the overnight reaction by Republican politicians, conservatives, right wing pundits, is so over the top, so extreme, so fundamentally anti-American and our system of justice (IMO), that now I’m wondering if the rest of us will find it as offensive as I do. One example among literally hundreds: Hugh Hewitt, who has always had the reputation of “reasonable” right wing pundit and “legal expert”, suggested last night that this was the equivalent to the Dobbs decision in terms of how “real Americans” would react.

Marjorie Taylor Greene

I hadn’t heard this until tonight, but apparently a few days ago Trump said “I can’t get a fair hearing from this judge; look at him.” The judge is of Colombian descent. This is reminiscent of the Trump University trial back in 2015, during which Trump complained that he could not get a fair hearing because the judge was of Mexican descent. Back then at least some Republicans condemned him for his blatant racism. Today, total silence. Conservatives are used to the bigotry by now and are willing to live with it.

If Joe Biden committed a crime involving Hunter then prosecute him. But stop whining about Trump; you sound petulant and stupid.

I think it’s the proper role of city prosecutors to convict violent criminals and white collar criminals alike. It’s not an either-or.

Listening to Sean Hannity right now. He is as angry as I’ve ever heard him. But his arguments are completely technical and legalese. He doesn’t mention the key components of this case- namely that Trump had a porn star paid off in order to hide the fact from the public so that it wouldn’t hurt his election chances.

Falsifying business records in order to commit election fraud. See how easy that was?