All the trump cases are quite confusing…probably because there are so many of them.
I was under the impression that he’s already been found guilty of massive criminal fraud, and these cases are to simply to decide if he gets penalised or not?
The NY fraud case where he has already been found guilty is a civil case.
The four other (criminal) cases are:
2 x various attempts to overturn election result
1 x hush money
1 x stashing classified documents
Yeah we are only talking about a multi million (maybe billion over the years) dollar fraud and tax evasion, not serious crimes like shoplifting or being black in sight of a police officer.
Yep, it's amazing. Be a regular person and there really isn't much you can do against the police but be an Alex Jones with a judgement for 1.5 billion against you and the people you owe would rather settle for 6% of that than get nothing because you can stall forever. I think this has always happened but now it is so in your face that it is offensive
I guess the 3 strikes and your out policy also doesn't count for "rich man" crimes.
Has one of the election cases not decided that he is guilty of trying to overturn an election result? Or is there just more murmurings as it trickles along?
Here’s a take on the competence and credibility of trump’s final defence witness
I loved the fact that the prosecution were like "Yeah, we used this idiot as a expert witness and we lost that case, so we know he's a dummy"
The NY fraud case where he has already been found guilty is a civil case.
Not quite - it was established at the outset that there has been fraud. That is that the 'Trump Organisation' has acted fraudulently - the Organisation is Trump, some of the Trump kids and various others acting on their behalf. The trial is establishing who in the organisation perpetrated or participated in that fraud and how the organisation itself will be penalised.
I'm baffled as to what Trump is offering as a defence, but the younger Trumps are claiming that the accountants seemed to be acting on their own volition and that they just trusted that it was all fine and signed stuff.
When I said the fraud case had wrapped up - for clarity, I should have referred to it as 'a hearing' as the fraud determination has already been made by the judge; the hearing has been for both sides to present evidence to allow the judge to assess the amount of 'disgorgement'.
There has been no decision in any of the election cases as they haven't yet reached court.
pisco's list above is incomplete; here's a more comprehensive list of cases against trump... https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-key-cases-civil-criminal-investigations-lawsuits-updates-2022-7?r=US&IR=T
The four other (criminal) cases are:
2 x various attempts to overturn election result
1 x hush money
1 x stashing classified documents
The hush money one should be a slam-dunk win for Trump, of the two election results trials I think only the Georgia State case represents a prison level threat to him, it's not Federal so he can't make himself immune, the evidence "Brad, I just need eleven thousand and one votes" seems pretty irrefutable on the face of it, and the folks that were spreading the lies about it all have all turned states witness because even they can see that otherwise they're sharing a cell with Trump.
Both of Smith's cases (the other election interference and using a toilet as storage for top secret files) are Federal, if Trump can delay them, he's home free.
The potential fly-in-the-ointment is the jury. Does anyone know whether any or all of the charges/indictments require a unanimous decision or a simple majority (or something else?)
It's gonna be next-to-impossible to select a completely non-partisan jury and jury selection (and constant appeals as is Trump's modus operandi) may stall any guilty verdicts.
trump and E Jean Carroll... https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/13/politics/e-jean-carroll-trump-immunity/index.html
Intersting to note that the federal appeals court are of the opinion that presidential immunity is 'waivable'; if this goes to the supreme court, will they agree?
There is no way he’s going to prison. I think we all know that at heart. It is America after all. OJ Simpson didn’t go to jail FFS.
I've just had to check the date. Trump is apparently selling swatches of the suit he wore for his indictment hearing......
There is no way he’s going to prison. I think we all know that at heart. It is America after all. OJ Simpson didn’t go to jail FFS.
Don't shatter my dreams...
IMO there's no chance he goes to prison. I actually think this helps him, it plays into the narrative that the 'establishment' or 'deep state' or whatever else you might want to call it are afraid of him and out to stop him running again by whatever means necessary. I actually think this sets a dangerous precedent, there's a very good chance he'll win in 2024 and if he does he'll almost certainly try and use similar tactics against his political opponents.
OJ Simpson didn’t go to jail FFS.
oh but he did!
not for murdering two people though. Second time around for robbery and kidnap wasn’t it? I should’ve been more specific
theotherjonv - saw that reported on CNN last night and thought...he's selling his clothes to fund raise? Thought I was in a dream - but wasn't.
A very big IF - if the supreme court takes up the (almost certain) appeal against today's decision regarding presidential immunity from prosecution and shred that argument I think there's every possibility of trump getting a jail sentence or, more likely, home confinement with additional conditions.
If I understand it correctly - and stand to be corrected - a president can still serve if convicted; whether he can do that from prison is unknown.
If he is the GOP nominee and wins I think it's entirely possible he will look to dismantle chunks of the US
judicial system.
It's olso likely, IMO, that he will attempt to amend the constitution in ways as yet unknown.
US isolationism? Withdrawal from international organisations including NATO, withdrawal of financial and military support for Ukraine, climate initiatives canned and much more.
He will also be completely out played by Putin, Xi and Kim amongst others so...god help us all.
The best hope for humanity is that he dies soon - either natural causes or, preferably, someone assassinates the fat, odious, orange pig; a bag of cancerous cells in an expensive but ill-fitting suit.
Let's hope that the military and surviving bits of the judicial system stand up to him - NO you can't do that and we will stop any attempt.
Let’s hope that the military and surviving bits of the judicial system stand up to him – NO you can’t do that and we will stop any attempt.
You know, I feel like this has been done already.
Guy reeks of Bad Bob Booth.
Difference is...this is all too trucking real; not a comic book.
a bag of cancerous cells in an expensive but ill-fitting suit.
With swatches cut out for fundraising....
If I understand it correctly – and stand to be corrected – a president can still serve if convicted; whether he can do that from prison is unknown
The closest in history is Eugene Debs. He had been an objector of WW1, and one of his speeches gave them a chance to charge him under the Espionage act, as it dissuaded people from signing up. He got ten years.
He ran for president while in prison in 1920, embracing the convict status as a gimmick/selling point. He lost, but I'm assuming the fact he was running meant there was no lawful reason he couldn't be president.
Got to love the US. Surely there has to be a Gov.uk style tick box form called something like “Am I allowed to run for office” whereby the first bit is, you can not run for office if you tick yes to any of the following statements:
I have attempted to meddle in a democratic election process.
I have incited insurrection.
I have committed fraud and/or tax evasion on a grand scale.
I am a complete and utter ****.
My hair is a disgrace and should not be allowed under the human rights act due to the confusion and/or offence caused to others every time they look at my ****ing ridiculous head.
there’s a very good chance he’ll win in 2024
While that is true, Its as well to bear in mind that overall the reversal of Roe vs Wade has had a massive impact on the electoral success of the GOP to the point that a number of them are beginning to suggest legislation to introduce a 15 week "compromise". In every state (7 so far) that have held ballots since the decision in both Red and Blue states, anti-abortion activists have lost. In the Mid Terms last year it was a major factor, and in the 'off-year' elections this year all the candidates campaigning on the anti-abortion ticket lost, and only one candidate openly supported by Trump won.
While that is true, Its as well to bear in mind that overall the reversal of Roe vs Wade has had a massive impact on the electoral success of the GOP
I don't think voters (that would vote for Trump) really equate him with the rest of the GOP. He may be credited with engineered the situation that lead to Roe v Wade being overturned but he didn't campaign on the basis that it would happen, or celebrate the fact that it had happened particularly. He's credited with stuffing the various courts, but that was just a) dumb luck that some judges died to create the vacancies and b) it was really Jones Day that did the court packing, using Trump as their vehicle to do so. (They helped him get elected, gave themselves jobs in his administration, used those jobs to dole out lifetime appointments to their friends and allies, quietly moonwalked away from Trump and can now sell their services on the basis that they apoointed the judges who'll try the case they represent you in. And have managed to do that without any of the shitstains hat seems to have to have tainted just about everyone else that came near Trump's administration - Trump himself seems to have not even noticed them)
Roe V Wade has been disastrous for the GOP electorally, pretty much everywhere else on the ballot paper. But I don't think it matters for him. The Whitehouse wasn't involved and going forwards won't be involved - it's a situation entirely of the Supreme Court's making.
Last time I flew to the states, the immigration card asked something like if you’ve been convicted for “moral turpitude”.
I thought it was to weed out ne’erdowells, maybe it’s to fast track you to President
The US visa application asks questions like :
-Are you a terrorist
-Have you ever been at war against the USA
- Have you ever been involved in a plot against the US
Some genius thought they would catch out all the AQ terrorists with that lot........
Some genius thought they would catch out all the AQ terrorists with that lot……..
Presumably there are significant penalties for telling porkies on the immigration form such that if they can't actually prove any of the mentioned offences/get a significant prison sentence, then they can fall back on the "lying on the immigration form" offence instead...
Some genius thought they would catch out all the AQ terrorists with that lot……..
The reason is sadly boring and sensible. Leaving aside catching complete idiots the primary reason is that it means the person obtained the visa under false pretences and so if caught is easier to boot out.
Yep, there's a lot of that in official documentation stuff, there's nothing to stop you lying but the lie makes for a nice clean recorded offence which happens in your territory so no questions about jurisdiction etc.
It can also serve as a convenient way of criminalising behaviour that isn't necessarily an offence in itself- "are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party" is a famous example- being a member of the communist party was legal for most people, but lying about it or refusing to answer the question was a nice simple straight to jail.
then they can fall back on the “lying on the immigration form” offence instead…
Yep, it's the same reason that US courts will usually convict a murderer with 200 years of jail, plus 3 additional life sentences on different charges...so if they manage to wriggle out of one conviction, they still spend the rest of thier life in jail anyway, as the other 3 convictions still remain intact, unless overturned on appeal or whatever.
It's morally a bit dubious, IMO, But I can see why they do it that way, as it means that person will never get out of jail until they die.
But from another perspective, a wrongful conviction ( It does happen, ) it means you are screwed.
This is a major reason I'm against a death penalty, regardless of crime, because there are a lot of cases where mistakes are made by the defence or even the prosecution, and sometimes even on purpose, that are exposed years later, it's not actually that rare for that to happen, moreso if you cannot afford a good solicitor.
It can also serve as a convenient way of criminalising behaviour that isn’t necessarily an offence in itself- “are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party” is a famous example- being a member of the communist party was legal for most people, but lying about it or refusing to answer the question was a nice simple straight to jail.
The 'tick here if you are a terrorist' thing was a part of a raft of hasty measures brought in after 9/11, another was the FBI and others asking for ridiculous question that required feats of incredible memory to answer of anyone they had vague suspicions or hunches about. Exhaustive detail and whereabouts, time, place going back weeks or months, have you ever seen this stranger and so on - just on the basis that any error or omission in your account that they could prove counted as lying to the FBI and that was enough to lock you up under terror laws - broadcast that as a terror plot foiled - then quietly let you go again later when its clear that there was actually nothing to suspect, charge or convict on
This was pre-WTC attack.
The ‘tick here if you are a terrorist’ thing was a part of a raft of hasty measures brought in after 9/11
It really isn't...I remember flying to the US many years before that and having to tick some boxes on a form in the plane to 'get my visa' before landing, one of the most obscure questions was about if I was smuggling cuban cigars, I'm seriously not joking!
Rather than wade through 500 plus pages to see if this has already been posted...(Bad Lip Reading)
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/colorado-trump-14th-amendment-12-19-23/index.html
Banned from the Colorado ballot! Yeah, a good news day...
Let's see what the US Supreme Court has to say first. I'm guessing that suddenly, 'State's Rights' won't be as important to the Republican justices.
Banned from the Colorado ballot!
Huge news!
Time will tell whether or not it sticks but it's certainly another huge problem to add to his already massive pile.
One sad certainty is that he will crank the victim narrative up to the max for this and I'm sure he'll see a spike in donations.
martinhutch Full Member
Let’s see what the US Supreme Court has to say first.
Tbh, I'm not sure why he wants to take this to the US Supreme Court as Colorado is not a Trump state, so it's not like he needs their votes. I'm not sure whether an adverse judgement from SCOTUS has implications for other states which have already ruled in his favour on the same issue
One sad certainty is that he will crank the victim narrative up to the max for this and I’m sure he’ll see a spike in donations.
More NFT's and fabric swatches?
Are people actually buying this with actual money, or is it pure hype?
Tbh, I’m not sure why he wants to take this to the US Supreme Court as Colorado is not a Trump state, so it’s not like he needs their votes.
I assume to pre-empt lawsuits in red states like Texas, or purple states like Wisconsin. Something like this really has to go to the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling. As much as I think Trump is a huge danger to democracy, I'm not sure this is the way to do it - it'll basically just lead to endless court challenges every election cycle, for example, if someone took part in civil disobedience when they were young, that will be portrayed as engaging in insurrection. The quicker the Supreme Court deals with it, the better for everyone, at least that way the state courts will have some guidance.
The best thing about it? All the Colorado Supreme court judges are Republican appointments. and they referred to a judgement by Neil Gorsuch (also a Republican) in their ruling.
Although its still weird that political parties get to appoint judges.
Its worth noting that its so far only the Primary that trump is barred from, not the actual presidential election
And Colorado votes Democrat, so he was never going to win the state anyway.
Other insurrection cases to bar him in other states have failed, so this could go either way.
Seems to be gathering some momentum on all fronts right now.
Col used to be a swing state but it's swung pretty heavily to the democrats at state level. Local level there are some decidedly republican outposts
Tbh, I’m not sure why he wants to take this to the US Supreme Court as Colorado is not a Trump state, so it’s not like he needs their votes.
Other state supreme courts, including swing states, are waiting in the wings to potentially deliver the same verdict.
Also, the 14th Amendment says a person engaged in insurrection against the US can't be president. So this ruling basically says Trump was engaged in insurrection. So he can't really let it slide.
You'd have thought Trump would be backed at the Supreme Court, but I'm guessing the outcome will rest on whether the big money GOP interests that currently own the court still see value in a Trump candidacy, or whether they feel it's time to punt him into the long grass.
punt him into the long grass.
over the edge of the Grand Canyon plz
Col used to be a swing state but it’s swung pretty heavily to the democrats at state level. Local level there are some decidedly republican outposts
I'd concur - I was there in the summer - anecdotally, people were happy to talk him down in public.
Also, the 14th Amendment says a person engaged in insurrection against the US can’t be president.
it’s not quite that specific - no mention of president, just ‘public office’.
any decision in this instance could have repercussions for other Trumpists running in state and federal elections mind.
So this ruling basically says Trump was engaged in insurrection. So he can’t really let it slide.
From the BBC report, I took the decision as stating that he was definitely engaged in insurrection, the issue was whether the 14th amendment applied to the presidency
any decision in this instance could have repercussions for other Trumpists running in state and federal elections mind.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
But it only affects you if a court agrees you've been engaged in insurrection, which quite rightly is a high bar.
Republicans are losing their minds
Apparently its tyranny if Trump is kept off the ballot by; impeachment, if he's a convicted criminal, or the Supreme Court upholds the constitution, or he's held accountable for his part in any insurrections, but its fine if he appoints fake electors, or orchestrates a coup attempt.
They were all Democrat appointed judges
Yes you're right, it was the folks that bought the case that are all Republicans.
I took the decision as stating that he was definitely engaged in insurrection, the issue was whether the 14th amendment applied to the presidency
Yes, two rulings in one really. It will be interesting to see which of them he'll appeal over. Trump claiming that he wasn't an officer of the US when he took the oath to support the Constitution was pretty desperate stuff. But he's not been found guilty so far in any criminal court of taking part in insurrection.
It presents the GOP and its funders with a fork in the road, though. If they can still see a route to victory next year with Trump, despite his legal (and other) difficulties, then they may direct their SCOTUS to overturn the ruling. If they would rather be done with his stench at this point, they can now get rid.
But he’s not been found guilty so far in any criminal court of taking part in insurrection.
the 14th amendment covers being supportive of, as well as taking part. I thinks its phrased as 'give confort to'which in the context means strengthen or reinforce rather than provide scatter cushions.
‘give comfort to’
Sound more like he has invited them into his tacky boudoir and to play hide the mushroom.
Yes you’re right, it was the folks that bought the case that are all Republicans.
I approve of this typo
Nothing better than a political campaign having to deny its candidate wears diapers.
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1738318531123396789
https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1736027329447575691
https://twitter.com/AlbertMacGloan/status/1300185569474105346
Trump removed from Maine ballot.
https://twitter.com/MESecOfState/status/1740520934744969232
This has the minor possibility of tipping the election because Maine allocates two electoral college votes to the overall winner, plus the other two by congressional district. In the last election, Biden won 3 EC votes and Trump 1. Most states just allocate all the votes to the overall winner.
LOL!
In more seasonal festive news, I read an article that when filming 'Home alone' Trump wouldn't let them film in the lobby of the Trump hotel (or whatever it's called these days for tax reasons) unless they gave him a cameo.
Apparently Trump is now saying that the movie studio 'begged him' to do the cameo.
I'm no gambling man, and of course I don't know what conversations were had, so I'm not going to make any sweeping assumptions!
Although to be fair I've only just started to skim read that document, and I can pick a hole in it straight away:
Thay are using dropbox for legal coms? I mean really?
That's no better than our lot using Whatsapp... it's not a good look, and an open invitation to challenge.
I'd challenge a case against me on the same grounds...I'd expect formal communication in letter or verified email... it's not a good look for such a high profile case...dropbox...I mean WTAF....
it’s not a good look, and an open invitation to challenge.
From I can see there, the Maine Secretary of State is saying that the people who challenged Trump submitted evidence via a broken Dropbox link. The Secretary of State's office then provided the documents to counsel (i.e. Trump's lawyers). Trump's lawyers will challenge on any grounds they can think up, but the SOS has preempted that avenue by providing the documents and explaining the problem.
Fair enough..as you were..
My skim reading reaction was that the prosecution didn't give the defence imprortant info via propper means to allow them to review it, beforehand.
"copies of the evidence were provided during the hearing"
It will be appealed to the Maine Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. A minor clerical issue at this stage won't make any difference once it gets to the SC.
So essentially just noise/filibustering then, I hope!
I'd vote Trump for president.
Its the total comedy factor you need to consider, and recently the number of lackeys who are ending up in front of a judge is beginning to run down. So more humour, more backtracking lackeys and theres always the chance he will screw up totally and cause a war with someone who is supposed to be an ally or critical to Americas strategic long term plan.
So essentially just noise/filibustering then, I hope!
From Trump's lawyers, yes. That's their strategy for pretty much everything. The big question is what the U.S. S.C. will do. They may decide they don't want to touch it and just say that it's up to each state to decide. There are six conservative justices on the court (out of 9 total). I suspect they would much prefer to not have to rule on this one so there's a good chance they will just refuse to hear the case. A split ruling, with some justices dissenting would be devastating for the perception of legitimacy of the court. Chief Justice Roberts is more of a centrist conservative so it's possible that a divided court might rule against Trump. Whatever the outcome, if they take the case, a huge number of American's will denounce the result as partisan and attack the legitimacy of the court. I think it would be much easier for them to just say that each state is responsible for how it runs its elections and let each state level supreme court rule as they see fit.
Speaking with BBC News, Mrs Bellows said it was her duty to uphold election laws in her state, and that she hoped the "Supreme Court will settle this matter nationwide".
"I'm mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on section three of the 14th Amendment. But I'm also mindful that no presidential candidate has, ever before, engaged in insurrection."
Strong words...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67837639
From the BBC article, seems to be a lot of legal folk quoted who think these decisions won't stand up at the Supreme Court, without going into great detail why. We are focusing on two states that have barred him, other states have thrown these cases out.
Trump hasn't actually been charged with insurrection, so I guess these cases are asking the courts to make a decision on that which they may not feel confident doing.
Trump hasn’t actually been charged with insurrection
And neither were the Confederate leaders who were the target of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment doesn't say anything about requiring a conviction, it just says that someone who has engaged in insurrection is barred. The ballot in each state is determined by the state. If a candidate is barred under the 14th amendment, they can appeal to the state supreme court and then try appealing to the U.S. S.C. if the first appeal is rejected. In Trump's case, the evidence of insurrection is very well documented so appealing to the S.C. based on an argument that he didn't engage in insurrection is a difficult case to argue. That's why I think the conservative majority on the U.S. S.C. will probably not want to hear the case.
devastating for the perception of legitimacy of the court.
Given that Harlan Crow (billionaire Republican mega-donor) 'owns' Clarence Thomas, and Paul Singer (Republican billionaire mega-donor) 'owns' Alito, and when the Congress suggested some oversight, it was rejected out of hand by Roberts; I think its safe to say that the SC gave up any pretence at legitimacy a while back.
Trump hasn’t actually been charged with insurrection,
He doesn't have to be. The more important that its legally established that there was insurrection.
If he was charged with insurrection thats simply a matter of him going to jail. But in the context of the 14th Amendment - if its established that there was insurrection (rather than "legitimate political discourse' or a 'sightseeing tour') then Trump, as an oath-sworn office holder, only really needs to have spoken favourably of it.
The legal issues are around whether the office of President is within scope or not, and apparently it's not that simple. The factual question of whether J6 was an insurrection is secondary. Even firmly anti-Trump constitutional lawyers seem to agree it could legitimately go either way.
Given that Harlan Crow (billionaire Republican mega-donor) ‘owns’ Clarence Thomas
How dare you suggest Crow buying Thomas's mother's house at a premium and then letting her continue to live in it rent-free gives him any sort of influence over Justice Thomas. It's a totally private transaction with no connection to...anything
The legal issues are around whether the office of President is within scope or not, and apparently it’s not that simple.
It very, very obviously is. Their argument is that the President is not an officer of the United States. The only people who say it isn't are MAGA wingnuts who also claim the insurrection was just a bunch of peaceful tourists taking selfies around the Capitol.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Was just reading about how lax the rules are around Supreme Court appointees and persons of influence. Crooked.
The S.C. justices do read the newspapers and they are aware of how controversial many of their decisions are. Chief Justice Roberts, especially, knows that it's important that a large majority see the court as being legitimate. If the S.C. ruled that the President is not an officer of the United States (or that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the President for any other reason), it would go down in history like the Dredd Scott decision (where the court ruled that African ancestry disqualified anyone from U.S. citizenship). Dredd Scott has gone down in history as probably the most misguided decision in S.C. history. Chief Justice Roberts absolutely does not want to go down in history as doing something equally stupid.
Was just reading about how lax the rules are around Supreme Court appointees and persons of influence.
The courts have no oversight at all. There seems to have been a founding assumption that Judges would be appointed on the basis of their proven integrity by people who themselves were well intentioned. They're a fraction of the problem too - theyre the top tier court in a many tiered system all of which are politically appointed life-time tenures. We focus on the 3 three Trump appointees whilst overlooking 200 other lifetime appointments made in the judicial system under Trump's tenure (for the most part theyre actual Jones-Day appointees rather than Trumps and Jones-Day largely stacked the courts with their own current and former staff - Trump won't even know who most of them are)
Republicans are now heading back to the 'it was just a rally gone wrong, not an insurrection' talking point, as if a truckload of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers weren't already in jail for their part in an organised conspiracy to try to overturn the results of an election.
The multiple efforts to introduce fake electors and intimidate election officials, for which we are now learning the true extent of Trump's direct involvement, already constitute sedition. The riot at the Capitol is just the cherry on top.
The lower level courts generally have stricter ethics rules than the U.S. S.C., but it will vary a lot between states. I think the assumption with the S.C. was that the vetting process is so strict that any crooks would be weeded out along the way. Part of the problem is that S.C. justices receive an upper-middle-class income but socialize with extremely wealthy people. I think they just lose their bearings and don't understand how normal people perceive things. I doubt that Clarence Thomas ever made any explicit deal to favour any of his friends, it's just that his view of the world will have been badly skewed by hanging out with them and he probably doesn't have the faintest idea how skewed it is.