He’s already lost, this trial is only to determine how much it will cost him. I think it’s more that he’s realized how bad his attorneys are, and that he’s going to lose everything.
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
886 points (96.6% liked)
politics
19144 readers
3167 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
And to think, all he had to do was not run for president of the United States (among many other things) and this probably never would have happened to him.
I mean, I’ve never run for president of the United States, it’s a very easy thing to not do.
He also could have, you know, not crimed.
Seriously. Had he not ran, or dropped out early, he could have probably started his own fringe news channel and lived a relatively unchanged, trouble free life and probably made some money doing it.
I personally think he expected to lose and wasn’t expecting the Russians to barely tip the scales to eek out an electoral college victory.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(17 replies)
he’s realized how bad his attorneys are
Maybe he should have paid or listened to the first dozen sets of lawyers he went through.
He’s almost certainly going to appeal whatever verdict he gets, claiming that he had ineffective legal council and that the judge was biased against him. Because the only effective reason you can appeal is if you don’t believe your trial was fair. So he’s basically stacking the “this trial was unfair” deck in his favor.
I hate to be that guy, but you can't appeal on ineffective assistance of counsel in a civil proceeding.
load more comments
(5 replies)
“My trial was unfair!”
“On what grounds?”
“I made it unfair for myself!”
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
I will never get tired of all this losing.
I would be happy with just one loss that actually sticks.
I feel like all I read is, "Trump is really in trouble this time!" - but all I actually hear is Waylon Jennings saying, "Boy that Donald sure is in a heap ah trouble."
He really is the best at losing, no one loses like he does, they say they do but they don't he is the best loser.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Trump knows he can't win in a court of law, so he wants to win in the court of public opinion, where a con-man like him actually has some leverage over the gullible.
Even if he loses, he will suffer no significant consequences, nor will the lawless movement that supports him.
He could lose all of these cases tomorrow, and it still wouldn't mean a thing. He could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone, and there still would be no significant consequences.
The GOP are a lawless terrorist movement, but everyone else wants to "take the high road."
Convicted Sex Offender Treason Trump has already suffered huge consequences of losing his business license in NY and having his business go into receivership. In addition to the expected $250 million fine.
True. This is literally the corporate death penalty. His corporate assets may have to be sold to pay the debts. They will not get much, as the brand name will have to be changed. It's the worst thing that could happen to a business owner.
He will not be poor, but may end up with his name on worse buildings. Houston TX vs. Manhattan. And you know he doesn't want to leave NYC.
load more comments
(10 replies)
Excellent.
John Yoo?
"I think that Trump has already decided he's going to lose on the law," John Yoo, a Berkeley Law professor and former Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration, told Fox News on Monday. "Last week, the judge already made all the key findings against him. So what I think President Trump has done is turn this all into a political strategy."
Yeah... THAT John Yoo:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos
"a March 13, 2003, legal opinion written by John Yoo of the Office of Legal Counsel, DoJ, and issued to the General Counsel of Defense five days before the U.S. invasion of Iraq started, concluding that federal laws related to use of torture and other abuse did not apply to agents interrogating foreigners overseas;[3] and other DoD internal memos authorizing techniques for specific military interrogations of certain individual detainees."
and:
"You have asked for this advice in the course of conducting interrogations of Abu Zubaydah."[6] The memo's author, John Yoo, acknowledged the memo authorized the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used by the CIA in Zubaydah's interrogation.[7] Yoo told an interviewer in 2007, "there was an urgency to decide so that valuable intelligence could be acquired from Abu Zubaydah, before further attacks could occur."[7]
John Yoo, a Berkeley Law professor and former Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration
It's insane that a guy like this who tried to get government torture legalized in the United States has now had a long, well-paying, distinguished career and is being referred to as "a Berkeley Law professor and former Justice Department official" instead of "torture guy."
I guess having zero morals and ethics really does pay off.
It's ridiculous how much John Yoo's name comes up in media interviews. It's as infuriating as seeing Newt Gingrich or Grover Norquist's name crop up in every other article in the Washington Post, who scrambles to get their opinions on all things political. It's all one big circle-jerk of mainstream media, greedy politicians, and billionaires.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Look, you are allowed as a defendant in a criminal case or a civil case," he continued. "You're allowed to criticize the prosecutor, you're allowed to criticize the other party. You're allowed to criticize the judge."
Are you allowed to criticize the judge like this, though? My understanding is that judges can nail people for contempt for far less. I know Trump is trying to score a political point here and a contempt of court ruling would play into that... but I wish one of these judges would go "idgaf" and bring down the hammer.
I mean, you're "allowed" to do many things if you don't care about the consequences. Trump right now can criticize the judge as much as he wants - so long as he's willing to suffer contempt of court rulings.
You're right, though. Judges are being lenient on Trump with regard to his outside courtroom behavior due to his being a political figure. If you or I did what he has been doing, we'd be found in contempt of court ASAP.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!
I really just wanna see the judge eviscerate this “no victims” defense BS. We do NOT wait for someone to be hurt to enforce the law. Can you imagine how many speeding tickets would be pled out of if this was a legitimate defense?
Even if you scope it down to the case at hand, we’d keep letting people commit financial fraud until the bank is finally harmed. And guess what happens when banks get fucked? The govt uses the common people’s tax dollars to bail them out.
The 'no victims' defence is right out of the Sovereign Citizen playbook and is often used in a futile attempt to get out of driving related charges and violations. I've seen videos of such world salad bombardments when the cops pull them over; it usually ends in a smashed window and handcuffs.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
"It seems to me Donald Trump's strategy here is essentially damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead,"
That has ALWAYS been Trump's strategy for everything.
load more comments
(10 replies)
Looks like the only path of the man is to become a dictator. Can't see any other ways for him to avoid being held to account at this point.
He's known this for a while now. Its why he's been pushing for delays to his trials, so he can just get another chance at being elected and then never leaving power again.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Not that I disagree, but how the hell is a "legal expert" any prerequisite for judging what a person's behavior says about them? That's more of psychologist's job, being a legal expert means as much as "the builder of the best sandcastle in the universe" in this case.
Not that it's very relevant to Trump, the only qualification required to analyze him is "being at least 5 year old of average intelligence". I just hate shitty titles, is all.
load more comments
(5 replies)
I love reading good news! like seeing the annoying orange finally tasting karma. I am making fresh popcorn
load more comments
(1 replies)
What are the chances of jail time? White collar crime like this effects way more people than petty theft, but I'm thinking at most it'll be a hefty fine. Again, like on most topics, I'm pretty ignorant of the reality of the situation.
It's a civil case, which means no jail time should he be convicted. It will just be a fine.
That said, it's possible the verbal attacks against those involved lead to...something. I wouldn't hold your breath though.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Unfortunately, this case, in a legal sense, is against his corporation, not him.
It's ruling will likely result in the dissolution of said corporation and the barring of Trump doing business in NYC, just like a similar case did with his charities, from which he stole.
That's the annoying thing with how corporations are handled in the US.
What Trump did in the charity and this case is criminal fraud. But because it was all nicely wrapped in the form of some corporate entity, it's a civil case. That shit is fucked up.
load more comments
(9 replies)
"Just because I'm guilty of all these crimes, it feels like this person wants to prosecute me for them - it's not fair!"
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›