• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Final jurors seated for Trump’s hush money case, with opening statements set for Monday

Athanasius68 said:
It has to be another crime.
People are arguing here that there is no need to charge somebody with at least intending to commit the other crime.


Which is nonsense.
Click to expand...
You’re right. This is all fake news. Trump is at home right now on his golden toilet. Biden has orchestrated all of this to make it seem like Trump is facing multiple indictments. The real story is he is not.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The grand jury didn't hear this.
It's a document presented by Mr. Bragg.
Click to expand...
My understanding is a statement of fact is prepared at the time, or close to , that an indictment which is post GJ. Perhaps one of lawyers could clarify.
 
Rumblefish said:
Thanks for clarifying.

But, if - as you concede - Trump might be convicted in this NY case.

And he still wins the election.

Do you want a POTUS being "distracted" by his appeal of state felony charges?

As you note, it won't be "quiet" --

And what if he LOSES the appeal and, therefore, is subject to the execution of his sentence....whatever it may be?
Click to expand...
As far as this case, I think it's utterly bogus. Frankly, and as I pointed out upthread, even Dems cringed when this case was brought, thinking it quite questionable.

But here we are and the reality is, it's happening in a place that is VERY liberal by a very large voting margin. So, could there be heavy anti-Trump bias on that jury and could Trump lose any case in that scenario, regardless of the case? That possibility certainly exists - we'll just have to wait and see.

As far as the ramifications of Trump potentially losing this case (and I think that is possible) and then losing an appeal (far less likely, IMO), that's getting to be a few too many what ifs to spend my time with.

I think it's remarkably disgusting that this tactic (case) is even happening, and I agree with Trump that it is insane that he is sitting in a trial day after day due to what I think is a part of a very heavy-handed, strategically timed use of lawfare to try to cripple a political opponent.
 
gbg3 said:
As far as this case, I think it's utterly bogus. Frankly, and as I pointed out upthread, even Dems cringed when this case was brought, thinking it quite questionable.

But here we are and the reality is, it's happening in a place that is VERY liberal by a very large voting margin. So, could there be heavy anti-Trump bias on that jury and could Trump lose any case in that scenario, regardless of the case? That possibility certainly exists - we'll just have to wait and see.

As far as the ramifications of Trump potentially losing this case (and I think that is possible) and then losing an appeal (far less likely, IMO), that's getting to be a few too many what ifs to spend my time with.

I think it's remarkably disgusting that this tactic (case) is even happening, and I agree with Trump that it is insane that he is sitting in a trial day after day due to what I think is a part of a very heavy-handed, strategically timed use of lawfare to try to cripple a political opponent.
Click to expand...
Guess he should have made better life decisions then. Unfortunately, a pregnant Melania was not enough for him. He needed more. And then didn't want anyone to know. And that would have been fine, except he mistook "doing his business" as a business expense. But....if complaining about it helps you out, more power to you.
 
Athanasius68 said:
It has to be another crime.
People are arguing here that there is no need to charge somebody with at least intending to commit the other crime.


Which is nonsense.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask about what you thought, I asked what the relevant NYS statute(s) require.
 
gbg3 said:
As far as this case, I think it's utterly bogus. Frankly, and as I pointed out upthread, even Dems cringed when this case was brought, thinking it quite questionable.
Click to expand...
I don't think the dems thought it was questionable, I think they thought it was difficult to prove. The misdemeanor charge by itself would have been easy to prove, while putting the second crime in as linked would be difficult.
gbg3 said:
But here we are and the reality is, it's happening in a place that is VERY liberal by a very large voting margin. So, could there be heavy anti-Trump bias on that jury and could Trump lose any case in that scenario, regardless of the case? That possibility certainly exists - we'll just have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
I can't disagree with this, I would hope anyone being on a jury would be honest but there are always extremes.
gbg3 said:
As far as the ramifications of Trump potentially losing this case (and I think that is possible) and then losing an appeal (far less likely, IMO), that's getting to be a few too many what ifs to spend my time with.
Click to expand...
I think Bragg is a good prosecutor with a lot of experience, I also think this is a very difficult to prove case. The appeal process is also fairly difficult, if the case get proven in court the appeal process requires something to be in error for Trump to get the appeal done.
gbg3 said:
I think it's remarkably disgusting that this tactic (case) is even happening, and I agree with Trump that it is insane that he is sitting in a trial day after day due to what I think is a part of a very heavy-handed, strategically timed use of lawfare to try to cripple a political opponent.
Click to expand...
I think if Trump didn't want to be in court he shouldn't have committed crimes.
 
gbg3 said:
As far as this case, I think it's utterly bogus. Frankly, and as I pointed out upthread, even Dems cringed when this case was brought, thinking it quite questionable.

But here we are and the reality is, it's happening in a place that is VERY liberal by a very large voting margin. So, could there be heavy anti-Trump bias on that jury and could Trump lose any case in that scenario, regardless of the case? That possibility certainly exists - we'll just have to wait and see.

As far as the ramifications of Trump potentially losing this case (and I think that is possible) and then losing an appeal (far less likely, IMO), that's getting to be a few too many what ifs to spend my time with.

I think it's remarkably disgusting that this tactic (case) is even happening, and I agree with Trump that it is insane that he is sitting in a trial day after day due to what I think is a part of a very heavy-handed, strategically timed use of lawfare to try to cripple a political opponent.
Click to expand...
I'm a DEM and identify as liberal and I never "cringed" at these charges.

NY prosecutors have a LONNNNGGGGG history of prosecuting both the misdemeanor 175.05 false entry misdemeanor and 175.10 false entry felony cases.

The only "unique" thing here is that Trump is a former POTUS and a current presidential candidate for the GOP.

And, here's the thing.....Trump was already under indictment for these charges at the time the GOP was choosing its candidate for president.

The risk that Trump would be sitting in a criminal trial during the early days of the campaign was WELL KNOWN to GOP primary voters and caucus goers. In fact, I think Nikki Haley brought it up several times during the debates.

Yet knowing that risk the GOP primary voters and caucus attendees chose Trump anyway.

They could have chosen somebody else.

But, they didn't.

If you know the dice can come up "snake eyes" and you still roll the dice anyway....whose "fault" is it when they come up snake eyes??
 
Short and interesting (to me) video including views of the case and/or of yesterday's happenings, from McCarthy, Barr, and Yoo. I know and understand some of you prefer to discount or not even read or hear the views of legal experts (then you won't have to put your legal knowledge and expertise up against theirs), but there may be a few here who actually don't think they are smarter and more well informed than this group of three and whose bias isn't so strong that they can actually handle hearing a view they might not like or would prefer wasn't being expressed by anyone. ;)

 
Rumblefish said:
NY prosecutors have a LONNNNGGGGG history of prosecuting both the misdemeanor 175.05 false entry misdemeanor and 175.10 false entry felony cases.
Click to expand...
Fine, but they chose not to prosecute Trump on any misdemeanor and the statute of limitations has long since passed.
 
gbg3 said:
Fine, but they chose not to prosecute Trump on any misdemeanor and the statute of limitations has long since passed.
Click to expand...
And once again, the merry-go-round turns again. We're back to this again. Thank you for informing everyone that choices were made.

It's at trial. Jury will decide. Not anyone else.
 
If Trump gets charged with contempt, he's just gonna appeal and post bail right?
 
daeler said:
The misdemeanor SOL has passed, the felony SOL has not.
Click to expand...
They are struggling mightily to try to tie a simple misdemeanor to a felony which makes no sense residing anywhere near there - but we'll see how it all goes.
 
Athanasius68 said:
It has to be another crime.
People are arguing here that there is no need to charge somebody with at least intending to commit the other crime.


Which is nonsense.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you know what you are talking aboutharold-0.webp
 
gbg3 said:
They are struggling mightily to try to tie a simple misdemeanor to a felony which makes no sense residing anywhere near there - but we'll see how it all goes.
Click to expand...
It's day 2 of a trial, and day 2 hasn't even started. How do you come to the conclusion that "they are struggling mightily?"
 
gbg3 said:
Short and interesting (to me) video including views of the case and/or of yesterday's happenings, from McCarthy, Barr, and Yoo. I know and understand some of you prefer to discount or not even read or hear the views of legal experts (then you won't have to put your legal knowledge and expertise up against theirs), but there may be a few here who actually don't think they are smarter and more well informed than this group of three and whose bias isn't so strong that they can actually handle hearing a view they might not like or would prefer wasn't being expressed by anyone. ;)

Click to expand...
Barr has already indicated that he supports - and will vote for - Trump in 2024.

John Yoo??? -- you mean Torture Memo writer John Yoo?? -- yeah, his opinion means nothing to me.

Actually, none of their opinions mean anything to me. And none of the opinions of the legal experts on MSNBC mean anything to me.

As I lawyer, I've read the statutes, read the memos submitted by BOTH the prosecution and the defense....and the judge's various orders.

I've come to my own conclusion. Based on my education and training.

And, to put it simply: Trump's in deep doo-doo.

Of course, I can be wrong. I've had trial courts and appellate courts tell me so.

But, I don't think so in this case .

For the record, I've had trial courts and appellate courts agree with me too.

You win some, you lose some.
 
gbg3 said:
As far as this case, I think it's utterly bogus. Frankly, and as I pointed out upthread, even Dems cringed when this case was brought, thinking it quite questionable.

But here we are and the reality is, it's happening in a place that is VERY liberal by a very large voting margin. So, could there be heavy anti-Trump bias on that jury and could Trump lose any case in that scenario, regardless of the case? That possibility certainly exists - we'll just have to wait and see.

As far as the ramifications of Trump potentially losing this case (and I think that is possible) and then losing an appeal (far less likely, IMO), that's getting to be a few too many what ifs to spend my time with.

I think it's remarkably disgusting that this tactic (case) is even happening, and I agree with Trump that it is insane that he is sitting in a trial day after day due to what I think is a part of a very heavy-handed, strategically timed use of lawfare to try to cripple a political opponent.
Click to expand...
Bogus? Perhaps listen to the trial and learn the laws

Also the hearing is going on for his gag order violations and some of them occurred while he was sitting in the courtroom
 
Prosecutor Chris Conroy said his team is not seeking an "incarcerary penalty." No surprise I guess, but I'm disappointed. Why the hell not? The Narcissist will not stop.
 
gbg3 said:
As far as this case, I think it's utterly bogus. Frankly, and as I pointed out upthread, even Dems cringed when this case was brought, thinking it quite questionable.

But here we are and the reality is, it's happening in a place that is VERY liberal by a very large voting margin. So, could there be heavy anti-Trump bias on that jury and could Trump lose any case in that scenario, regardless of the case? That possibility certainly exists - we'll just have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

Of course SOME Dems cringed. Dems are known for having a variety of opinions. Which notable Dems cringed?

Would moving the trial further upstate really make a difference? The alleged crimes occurred in Manhattan. With so many people to select from, Trump's lawyers can't let the seats be filled with unbiased jurors? I suspect this form part of the basis for an appeal if he should be found guilty.

Maybe Trump should start moving himself and his businesses out of Manhattan.
 
Athanasius68 said:
After all, the political issue here is to what extent the trial influences the 2024 election.
Click to expand...
Recent experience indicates these legal challenges actually build support among voters. Certainly help with fund raising.
 
JerryW said:
Of course SOME Dems cringed. Dems are known for having a variety of opinions. Which notable Dems cringed?

Would moving the trial further upstate really make a difference? The alleged crimes occurred in Manhattan. With so many people to select from, Trump's lawyers can't let the seats be filled with unbiased jurors? I suspect this form part of the basis for an appeal if he should be found guilty.

Maybe Trump should start moving himself and his businesses out of Manhattan.
Click to expand...
The moral of the story is that Trump simply needs to build and maintain his criminal empire in Mississippi, and then he can (apparently) do as he likes because he is in a more Trump friendly area of the country where the choice of party a candidate chooses matters more than the law
 
Judge raises voice while talking to Trump attorney
Judge Juan Merchan just raised his voice while talking to Donald Trump attorney Todd Blanche.

"I'm asking the questions. I'm going to be the one who decides whether your client is in contempt," he said. He added that he's been asking Blanche questions and he isn't getting answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom