• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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

Rumblefish said:
Hey, is it kosher to ask what source are you listening to or reading to get all this information?

Just curious

TIA
Click to expand...
CNN has minute to minute up to dates on it...they have reporters in the court room...not sure if they have some line of communication, but it is being reported quickly
 
Interesting point on CNN. Prosecutors showing mag covers from national enquire bashing with fake stories Hillary, ted cruz, ben carson, rubio, etc basically Trump's political opponents.

But nothing bad about Trump. Bad stuff about Trump was "caught and killed".

Not illegal in and of itself, but it does show that the election was a focus at the time of published stories,while Pecker was routinely meeting with Trump & Cohen about killing stories
 
upsideguy said:
It is the 'weakest', relatively speaking, as well as the least consequential, relatively speaking. Its the severity of the other offenses that have drowned out the significance of the New York case. Do not be deceived in comparison, however, as the New York charges are quite serious and the case against Trump is quite strong.


He doesn't have to pardon himself to end the trials. All he needs is "sicko-phant" AG (which you can bank on, if he is elected) willing to drop the charges or suspend the prosecution. Even if he is convicted, he could appeal and the new DoJ decline to defend the verdict. He already has a "sicko-phant" judge in Florida happy to slow walk this case.

If he wins, there isn't much hope he will ever really face justice.
Click to expand...
Let’s hope he loses in November. If he does he disappears from significance forever.
 
ScrambledEggs said:
Interesting point on CNN. Prosecutors showing mag covers from national enquire bashing with fake stories Hillary, ted cruz, ben carson, rubio, etc basically Trump's political opponents.

But nothing bad about Trump. Bad stuff about Trump was "caught and killed".

Not illegal in and of itself, but it does show that the election was a focus at the time of published stories,while Pecker was routinely meeting with Trump & Cohen about killing stories
Click to expand...
No, but it can be considered a campaign contribution....there is an obvious value there...and it also looks like dirty tricks and trying to get the upper hand..
 
year2late said:
Damn. I wish this was not the first case. This is chicken feed compared to the others.

This one is more like "sleazy asshole gets sleazy asshole lawyer to make sure that sleazy tabloid story and fine upstanding porn star STFU"

I do believe crimes were committed by aforementioned sleazy asshole in this case- but I am so much more concerned about the other cases. .
Click to expand...

Bingo.

The danger with this case is with it being likely the only one to culminate before the election, and seemingly the weakest, an acquittal or failure of the felony chares may strengthen Trump's narrative of false prosecution, thereby assisting his election chances.
 
ScrambledEggs said:
Interesting point on CNN. Prosecutors showing mag covers from national enquire bashing with fake stories Hillary, ted cruz, ben carson, etc basically Trump's political opponents.

But nothing bad about Trump. Bad stuff about Trump was "caught and killed".

Not illegal in and of itself, but it does show that the election was a focus at the time of published stories,while Pecker was routinely meeting with Trump & Cohen about killing stories
Click to expand...

I think the other reason might be this: NE/AMI "caught and killed" negative stories for some celebs - so that they could later leverage the celebrity for their consent to use their image on the cover.

Imagine, say, HYPOTHETICALLY approaching Tom Cruise saying "Hey Tom, we bought and killed....for now...a story about your illegal cocaine use....but if you agree to be in a cover story about the new Mission Impossible [which will be a cover story and drive sales/eyeballs] we'll keep that negative story buried."

I think Pecker may testify that was a normal NE/AMI business practice.

One possible thing that may come out is....NE/AMI *never* used the Trump negative stories as leverage against Trump.

So, it wasn't part of NE/AMI's normal business practices --- which would reinforce the whole "it was to influence the election."
 
gbg3 said:
Even the left cringed when this (supposed) case was brought and then really cringed when they found out it would be the first to make it to trial. But as the left ALWAYS does, they shifted those goal posts in unison.
Click to expand...

A conviction will find you regretting these words, and I have strong inclination to believe Trump will take hits on at least some of the Misdemeanor charges if they are a jury option.
 
Rumblefish said:
This NY case wouldn't be "chicken feed" if brought against anyone else. I mean, imagine if YOU were charged with these crimes. Do you think they'd be "chicken feed" then?

I'd guess not....but, I assume you're a "normal" generally law abiding citizen.

So, you're hit the nail on the head....they are "chicken feed" ONLY IN COMPARISON to the other charges against Trump.

But what is that really saying??

It says, I think, Trump is not "normal." He has a distain for law generally and he's not just willing to step over lines you and I would not step over....but to STRIDE over them by a large margin and often.

He does so in a way that suggests that he doesn't even acknowledge or recognize ANY lines - as a business person, as a candidate, or as an office holder. To him, it seems, laws are for other people, not him.

That's very reminiscent of the "divine right" of kings/queens and dictators -- something I thought was rejected in 1776 or,, at a minimum, when the US Constitution was ratified in 1788 (taking effect in 1789).
Click to expand...
Rumblefish said:
Is that who we want in the WH??
Click to expand...

Apparently, many who think like Trump do. The key word is "many", sadly.
 
gbg3 said:
That's not what I was referring to. I meant if Trump wins the election, the (potential) appeal will be a big story rather than a quiet story.
Click to expand...

The Appeal will be a "big story" only if it prevails. Until that unlikely event, the conviction will be the "big story".
 
Chomsky said:
A conviction will find you regretting these words, and I have strong inclination to believe Trump will take hits on at least some of the Misdemeanor charges if they are a jury option.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the misdemeanor, Section 175.05, is an option for the jury.

Might have been strategic --- don't give the jury the option to find guilty on the "less serious" misdemeanor as a compromise for a "not guilty" on the felony.

Might have been due to statute of limitations issues with regard to the misdemeanors.

I'm in the weeds on this, but not that far into the weeds on that point.
 
gbg3 said:
Lol, this case is such a joke. Literally everyone is baffled by what the crime supposedly is!
Click to expand...
Oh looky. It's the trumpuan angle of saying, "Well everyone is baffled." As if you have any clue as to what others are thinking.
 
Jurors just got kicked out of the court room. Don't know why just yet.
 
Rumblefish said:
He doesn't HAVE to separately charge or prove that Trump *actually* committed the NY state election law violation OR the NY state income tax violation.

Once again, it does not matter whether Trump was actually able to violate NY state election laws OR NY state income tax laws.
Click to expand...
Rumblefish said:
It only matters - for purposes of 175.10 - whether TRUMP INTENDED to violate those other state laws
Click to expand...
Rumblefish said:
or - and get this - OR that Trump aided or concealed such crimes....and, your mind will be blown - OR aided or concealed such other crimes when committed by other people.

It's a trifecta of horror for Trump.

You really, really should read MORE of Judge Merchan's order denying Trump's motion to dismiss.

And you should read 175.10.
Click to expand...

It would then appear 175.10 is similar to Conspiracy charges, in that aspect. Something to which Bragg's Office would seem to have quite a bit of experience.
 
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...
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...
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...
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...

"See" what?

How will you determine your assertion of a "biased" jury?
 
FWIW, I'd caution about watching this as a "football game" trying to figure out who is winning and who is losing.

Right now, we're only hearing the witness as presented by the prosecutor......Blanche will get his turn on cross-x and they'll be some "not so fun" stuff to come out, I'm sure.

I give props to criminal defense attorneys....we civil guys get to depose witnesses beforehand and find out what they have to say.....criminal defense attorneys often work without the benefit of depositions.
 
daeler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

daeler said:
I can't disagree with this, I would hope anyone being on a jury would be honest but there are always extremes.
Click to expand...

Remember, Trump & his legal team picked the jury. They had 4 challenges remaining. Apparently, Trump & his legal team believe the jurors are unbiased.

daeler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bingo, again!

I'm puzzled as to why MAGA is speaking so intently about Appeal. Appeals rarely succeed. The last data from NYS I saw indicated a 4.1% success rate. That's less than 1 in 20, and not something to bank one's argument upon. In fact, it's an argument against.

daeler said:
I think if Trump didn't want to be in court he shouldn't have committed crimes.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

And rather than attacking the process, MAGA should consider arguing the evidence if they like to convince us of Trump's innocence.
 
Rumblefish said:
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??
Click to expand...

I believe you may be missing a key point:

MAGA/Republicans don't care (about Trump's criminality).

In fact, they seem to have given-up using democracy in furtherance of their goals implementing their unpopular minority ideology & success in ascending to power.
 
Note for the non-lawyers....."hearsay" is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter stated."

Hearsay: Pecker testifies that Trump told Cohen he banged Stormy Daniels. If offered to prove that Trump actually really banged Stormy.

If offered for another reason/purpose it might not constitute hearsay.

The out of court statement may be oral/spoken....or it may be written....which is why it came up here in the business records portion of Pecker's testimony. That is, the written documents MIGHT contain hearsay.

Expect objections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom