Topic: Sexual Abuser Donald Trump Indicted

[SamLad]

He'll be saying the character Rambo was based on him next.

[Jiminy Cricket]

He'll be saying the character Rambo was based on him next.

'Based'? Trump was and is Rambo:

[Red Beret]

Looks like Trump's lawyers lied to the appellate court over being unable to post the full amount for the bond. I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

[TSC]

Latest appeal to delay Mondays scheduled trial again refused - for the 3rd time

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-lawyers-try-third-day-192459668.html?

[BarryCrocker]

Is he Nelson Mandela?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-nelson-mandela-south-africa-joe-biden-b1150018.html

Or Jesus?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-jesus-christ-compare-truth-social-b2518772.html
 
What a ‘con’undrum for the electorate

Would be good if Kid Rock wrote a song about freeing him from jail in 21 years time.

[TSC]

Missed this effort earlier this week re the solar eclipse.  It appears the sun went a deeper shade of orange.

https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/united-states/trump-posts-epic-campaign-video-of-his-head-eclipsing-the-sun/video/d805710032aab8616ea108b169be773c

[BarryCrocker]

Replacement Theory card played earlier than expected.

Trump and his allies have claimed that Democrats are "importing voters" to allow non-U.S. citizens participate in the U.S. elections.

"That's why they are allowing these people to come in -- people that don't speak our language -- they are signing them up to vote," Trump said at a January rally in Iowa.

[GreatEx]

You'd think more voters who don't understand English would play into Trump's tiny hands

[PaulF]

Given how marmite he is, I'm not sure I'd expect any juror to be impartial.

[KillieRed]

I’d describe him to be more like lard than marmite.

[GreatEx]

I'd say he's more like snot. Some people like it secretly, and they're gross. Some people like it openly, and they should be sectioned.

[Scottymuser]

The DJT stock price has continued to fall day on day.  Absolutely hilarious.  $66 at its peak, a little after its IPO; less than 3 week later, and its now below $23.  What a pity.

[PaulF]

The DJT stock price has continued to fall day on day.  Absolutely hilarious.  $66 at its peak, a little after its IPO; less than 3 week later, and its now below $23.  What a pity.

Probably tax write offs for those that bought 😭

[oldfordie]

CNN saying 6 jurors have been chosen up to now, process is going far faster than anticipated. another fresh 96 have come into court now.

[exiledintheUSA]

CNN saying 6 jurors have been chosen up to now, process is going far faster than anticipated. another fresh 96 have come into court now.

Yep, Judge wants to get started with the opening arguments on Monday, was originally planned for next Thursday.

With any luck he'll be serving 10 in the pen by the end of May.

[oldfordie]

Yep, Judge wants to get started with the opening arguments on Monday, was originally planned for next Thursday.

With any luck he'll be serving 10 in the pen by the end of May.

Looking forward to Trump being forced to answer questions without lying, should be fun, I can see him hesitating trying to resist the urge to lie, ironic really, most of his fall guys went to prison for perjury trying to cover up for him, IMO, Trumps to scared to do that. he will try to come out with a few smart arse replys but he will soon be knocked into line and forced to answer the question.

[exiledintheUSA]

Looking forward to Trump being forced to answer questions without lying, should be fun, I can see him hesitating trying to resist the urge to lie, ironic really, most of his fall guys went to prison for perjury trying to cover up for him, IMO, Trumps to scared to do that. he will try to come out with a few smart arse replys but he will soon be knocked into line and forced to answer the question.

Apparently, Trump is way more focused and engaged today, seems that the jury selection has made him realize this is real.

I still expect him to say some dumb shit today after court though.

7th juror added.

[exiledintheUSA]

Interestingly 3 of the selected jurors are lawyers.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Is he dead yet. What are the odds on the judge holding him in contempt and arresting the Cvnt ?

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Interestingly 3 of the selected jurors are lawyers.

Long lost Biden relatives no doubt.

[oldfordie]

Apparently, Trump is way more focused and engaged today, seems that the jury selection has made him realize this is real.

I still expect him to say some dumb shit today after court though.

7th juror added.

Yep. Realty is sobering. the spin outside the court will be embarrassing but his fans will lap it up but he had hoped the lies and threats from his fans would mean he would never have to face being dragged into court, that must be at the back of his mind now, all the lies and bullshit won't help him in court.
Yep 7 Jurors chosen. imagine they have to pick the reserves after the Jury.

[oldfordie]

I wonder what he will look like when he goes to prison, No orange make up, no hair doos to cover up his baldy head. will he need to ask for nappys during his time in prison.

[Riquende]

I wonder what he will look like when he goes to prison, No orange make up, no hair doos to cover up his baldy head. will he need to ask for nappys during his time in prison.

Regardless of the verdict, I doubt he sees regular jail time for this. There's a lot of logistical complications and I think the judge would work with the secret service & whoever else to come up with some sort of house arrest solution with a ban on posting on his socials.

A sort of 21st century Elba, if you take my meaning.

[oldfordie]

Regardless of the verdict, I doubt he sees regular jail time for this. There's a lot of logistical complications and I think the judge would work with the secret service & whoever else to come up with some sort of house arrest solution with a ban on posting on his socials.

A sort of 21st century Elba, if you take my meaning.

Yeah, sadly I agree. it would be a logistical nightmare for any prison. impossible to keep him safe unless he went into Isolation. that is a opinion though and I wouldn't mind if am wrong, judge could say it's not there problem deal with it but I think he's more likely to serve time at home which opens up a can of worms, wonder what would happen if the judge said they would normally give a custodial sentence but willing to agree to home detention living under strict prison conditions, in bed by a certain time etc.

[goalrushatgoodison]

I know that he was convicted in the civil trials, but this is different. No way politics doesn't play a part here.

Do they need a 12-0 jury decision to convict? If so, id say it would be very unlikely he will be found guilty. New York may be a deep blue state but my Brothers just back from visiting our relatives there and they are all Trumpheads. They are not from Manhattan admittedly but still, if he only needs one hold out id say he will get it, by hook or by crook..

[thejbs]

I know that he was convicted in the civil trials, but this is different. No way politics doesn't play a part here.

Do they need a 12-0 jury decision to convict? If so, id say it would be very unlikely he will be found guilty. New York may be a deep blue state but my Brothers just back from visiting our relatives there and they are all Trumpheads. They are not from Manhattan admittedly but still, if he only needs one hold out id say he will get it, by hook or by crook..

My extensive family in NYC mostly voted Trump in 2016. Completely swallowed all the muck about Hillary. They’re no fans of Biden, but at least they’ve stopped supporting Trump. They wouldn’t entertain my criticism of Trump because I’m not from the US. And despite their very recent Irish connections (they all have Irish as well as USA passports), immigration is now the biggest issue.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I know that he was convicted in the civil trials, but this is different. No way politics doesn't play a part here.

Do they need a 12-0 jury decision to convict? If so, id say it would be very unlikely he will be found guilty. New York may be a deep blue state but my Brothers just back from visiting our relatives there and they are all Trumpheads. They are not from Manhattan admittedly but still, if he only needs one hold out id say he will get it, by hook or by crook..

As I understand it, in the US, a verdict must 12-0, either to convict or acquit. Else, it is hung jury and the prosecution can have another go at it with a new trial.

[Shankly998]

This is the most legally dicey of the cases where trump could very well be found not guilty.  The classified documents case on the other hand is open and shut even conservatives admit he's guilty and can only hand wring about others doing similar things without facing the same kind of action

[oldfordie]

As I understand it, in the US, a verdict must 12-0, either to convict or acquit. Else, it is hung jury and the prosecution can have another go at it with a new trial.

Yes, TV was saying the same. put it this way, I don't think theres anyway he's found not guilty by this Jury. not with 3 lawyers sat on the Jury, they will be impartial, all the evidence points to Trump being guilty and I can see them arguing and wining any Jurors arguments over why they think Trump is innocent.
I think it will be a guilty verdict or a mistrial on this occasion.

[Yosser0_0]

Yes, TV was saying the same. put it this way, I don't think theres anyway he's found not guilty by this Jury. not with 3 lawyers sat on the Jury, they will be impartial, all the evidence points to Trump being guilty and I can see them arguing and wining any Jurors arguments over why they think Trump is innocent.
I think it will be a guilty verdict or a mistrial on this occasion.

How do you know that? For some reason I find it a bit odd to see a significant amount of lawyers on a panel, maybe that's just what the system has thrown up.

I don't know the details of jury selection rules in the US but I wouldn't imagine it would be massively different to the rules in the UK in which jurors are selected from a cross section of the community making the panel balanced and impartial (they also check on that when being sworn in).

Having said all of that I have served as a juror at Crown court and I have noticed that our company which is a very large engineering company does seem to have an unusually high number of its employees being called for jury service. It is a large company so I suppose there is a big population to choose from and also employees must not have a criminal record, so I suppose everybody there will be eligible.

I actually avoided my first call up on medical grounds as I was in the middle of a hip replacement but it wasn't a given and needed cast iron medical evidence and they stated quite clearly it did not provide an exemption. Sure enough, 12 months to the day I was summoned again with a very firm letter, but I actually enjoyed the experience. I believe you can actually be summoned twice but can opt out on the second occasion, I don't think you can have a third call up though, might be wrong on that.

Slightly off topic but I've also been following the Post Office Inquiry and found some of these legal rules fascinating. In this clip the witness had not provided a written witness statement so they sent round the Sheriff's with a Section 21 notice - which focused his mind! (I think he shit himself).
 

<a href="https://youtube.com/v/bxY76ZHosUI?si=eN-4SLB8PsEp1aoj" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://youtube.com/v/bxY76ZHosUI?si=eN-4SLB8PsEp1aoj</a>

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/12/section/21

 

[oldfordie]

How do you know that? For some reason I find it a bit odd to see a significant amount of lawyers on a panel, maybe that's just what the system has thrown up.

I don't know the details of jury selection rules in the US but I wouldn't imagine it would be massively different to the rules in the UK in which jurors are selected from a cross section of the community making the panel balanced and impartial (they also check on that when being sworn in).

Having said all of that I have served as a juror at Crown court and I have noticed that our company which is a very large engineering company does seem to have an unusually high number of its employees being called for jury service. It is a large company so I suppose there is a big population to choose from and also employees must not have a criminal record, so I suppose everybody there will be eligible.

I actually avoided my first call up on medical grounds as I was in the middle of a hip replacement but it wasn't a given and needed cast iron medical evidence and they stated quite clearly it did not provide an exemption. Sure enough, 12 months to the day I was summoned again with a very firm letter, but I actually enjoyed the experience. I believe you can actually be summoned twice but can opt out on the second occasion, I don't think you can have a third call up though, might be wrong on that.

Slightly off topic but I've also been following the Post Office Inquiry and found some of these legal rules fascinating. In this clip the witness had not provided a written witness statement so they sent round the Sheriff's with a Section 21 notice - which focused his mind! (I think he shit himself).
 

<a href="https://youtube.com/v/bxY76ZHosUI?si=eN-4SLB8PsEp1aoj" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://youtube.com/v/bxY76ZHosUI?si=eN-4SLB8PsEp1aoj</a>

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/12/section/21

Ive sat on a Jury, a few of the Jurors made me shudder. swaying from side to side as points were made,
I wanted to find one particular defendant not guilty, I can't go into it too deep for obvious reasons but a few other people on the jury also thought the same as me at first, the majority was for guilty but I would have voted not guilty except for the Judges guidance left no doubt, he had to be found guilty, any points made to argue why they think the person wasn't really involved became irrelevant then, am no Barrister but the judges guidance was simple to understand but it still had to be pointed out to a couple of the jurors.
This is why I think the 3 lawyers will be a big influence on the rest of the Jury, they will be able to remember the important relevant evidence, giving a sound argument to dismiss arguments by Jurors who give there reasons why the Jury should find Trump innocent. as I say. the evidence points to Trump being guilty so any Impartial Lawyer will form a opinion on the evidence.

[PaulF]

If a judge can direct a jury, what's the point.....

Also, presumably if you don't want to do jury service, just post some stuff on Facebook about belief in aliens or that the Ev are going to win the league and you won't be selected.

[Yosser0_0]

If a judge can direct a jury, what's the point.....

Also, presumably if you don't want to do jury service, just post some stuff on Facebook about belief in aliens or that the Ev are going to win the league and you won't be selected.

To be fair they tend to direct them based on points of law in terms of threshold etc. to find somebody guilty. Haven't you watched Crown Court of Talking pictures TV?
 

[PaulF]

To be fair they tend to direct them based on points of law in terms of threshold etc. to find somebody guilty. Haven't you watched Crown Court of Talking pictures TV?
 

My legal prowess comes from enjoying Law and Order.

[oldfordie]

If a judge can direct a jury, what's the point.....

Also, presumably if you don't want to do jury service, just post some stuff on Facebook about belief in aliens or that the Ev are going to win the league and you won't be selected.

The judge won't say you must find Trump guilty or innocent.
The Judge will explain the law, EG.  If a m8 asks you for a lift in your car to go somewhere and on the way you realise he's transporting Heroin etc then stop the car and tell him to get out as soon as you know, not being a part of the gang or not being paid for the lift is irrelevant. so that would be explained in the judges direction. he would say If you believe the defendant knowingly knew the person in the car had drugs then you must find the person guilty. he would be guilty of transporting drugs, the prosecution doesn't have to prove he was paid for this as that's irrelevant. so if your sat on a jury and you think he's a nice lad, he's not involved with these bas and I don't think he got any money for doing it, he was just doing a m8 a favour... so am finding him not guilty someone on the jury will point out the Judges directions, under the law we have to find him guilty.

[Jiminy Cricket]

The judge won't say you must find Trump guilty or innocent.
The Judge will explain the law, EG.  If a m8 asks you for a lift in your car to go somewhere and on the way you realise he's transporting Heroin etc then stop the car and tell him to get out as soon as you know, not being a part of the gang or not being paid for the lift is irrelevant. so that would be explained in the judges direction. he would say If you believe the defendant knowingly knew the person in the car had drugs then you must find the person guilty. he would be guilty of transporting drugs, the prosecution doesn't have to prove he was paid for this as that's irrelevant. so if your sat on a jury and you think he's a nice lad, he's not involved with these bas and I don't think he got any money for doing it, he was just doing a m8 a favour... so am finding him not guilty someone on the jury will point out the Judges directions, under the law we have to find him guilty.

Are you still mates?

[CowboyKangaroo]

The judge won't say you must find Trump guilty or innocent.
The Judge will explain the law, EG.  If a m8 asks you for a lift in your car to go somewhere and on the way you realise he's transporting Heroin etc then stop the car and tell him to get out as soon as you know, not being a part of the gang or not being paid for the lift is irrelevant. so that would be explained in the judges direction. he would say If you believe the defendant knowingly knew the person in the car had drugs then you must find the person guilty. he would be guilty of transporting drugs, the prosecution doesn't have to prove he was paid for this as that's irrelevant. so if your sat on a jury and you think he's a nice lad, he's not involved with these bas and I don't think he got any money for doing it, he was just doing a m8 a favour... so am finding him not guilty someone on the jury will point out the Judges directions, under the law we have to find him guilty.

To add to this: a judge will make directions on points of law, and even direct that certain arguments should not be considered as a matter of law, however, even if no arguments remain it is still open to the Jury to reach their own decision. Judicial directions are extremely important, and where there is inconsistency in how judges are directing juries the attorney general may apply for a hearing to decide a point of law (such as the recent decision on the consent defence for protesters - the court held that, prospectively, judges should not leave that defence open for the jury in similar cases).

More on topic, as a lawyer, lawyers tend to make for poor members of the jury.

[Corkboy]

More on topic, as a lawyer, lawyers tend to make for poor members of the jury.

As a lawyer in Ireland, I am ineligible for jury service.

[oldfordie]

Are you still mates?

shhh

[TSC]

Yeah, sadly I agree. it would be a logistical nightmare for any prison. impossible to keep him safe unless he went into Isolation. that is a opinion though and I wouldn't mind if am wrong, judge could say it's not there problem deal with it but I think he's more likely to serve time at home which opens up a can of worms, wonder what would happen if the judge said they would normally give a custodial sentence but willing to agree to home detention living under strict prison conditions, in bed by a certain time etc.

The ‘being found guilty’ aspect alone will kill his chances of being elected.  I watched some report on the news coverage the other day where it was stated circa 25% of his Republican support wouldn’t vote for him if he’s found guilty, whether or not that results in prison time (it prob won’t).  I was surprised the figure was so high.  Obviously his base of loons will stay with him beyond any guilty verdict.