Topic: Sexual Abuser Donald Trump Indicted

[Mumm-Ra]

Unpopular opinion time:

While I hope he's found guilty, I think this whole trial is a joke and an embarrassment. There's just no heinous crime there, no real victim. If you could say with confidence that it swayed the election I suppose you would have something, I just don't think it would have done anything to affect the result, none of it was shocking to anyone. He would've denied it anyway and those who believe him would have believed him, those that forgive anything he does would have forgiven him.

Let's say Bill Clinton had had to pay off Monica Lewinsky to keep that under wraps. And let's say he'd covered up the cash payment it with some creative campaign fund accounting, and then it came to light later. If he was up in a criminal court on felony charges, four years after his presidency, with a republican president in power, I think we'd all be screaming bloody murder.

[KillieRed]

I’ve been up for jury selection twice (wasn’t chosen), but on both occasions lawyers were immediately allowed to leave. Small town court, I guess, and the judge knew them.

[oldfordie]

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.

Yeah, ive heard the same, I also wonder if theres a possibility of the shy Tory voter fear with some of the Republicans, am certain some people who live and work in strong Labour areas say they will vote Labour but vote Tory. no aggro that way, hopefully some people living in strong supporting Trump areas o say they are going to vote for Trump but will secretly vote Biden,  it would bring a lot of aggro saying your not voting for Trump when you're living among Trump family/ fanatics.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Unpopular opinion time:

While I hope he's found guilty, I think this whole trial is a joke and an embarrassment. There's just no heinous crime there, no real victim. If you could say with confidence that it swayed the election I suppose you would have something, I just don't think it would have done anything to affect the result, none of it was shocking to anyone. He would've denied it anyway and those who believe him would have believed him, those that forgive anything he does would have forgiven him.

Let's say Bill Clinton had had to pay off Monica Lewinsky to keep that under wraps. And let's say he'd covered up the cash payment it with some creative campaign fund accounting, and then it came to light later. If he was up in a criminal court on felony charges, four years after his presidency, with a republican president in power, I think we'd all be screaming bloody murder.

Other US politicians have been found guilty for similar offenses. In Trump's case, he also filled dozens of false accounts to hide the payment.

Where you so upset when Michael Cohen was found guilty for his part in this and did jail (gaol) time?

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Unpopular opinion time:

While I hope he's found guilty, I think this whole trial is a joke and an embarrassment. There's just no heinous crime there, no real victim. If you could say with confidence that it swayed the election I suppose you would have something, I just don't think it would have done anything to affect the result, none of it was shocking to anyone. He would've denied it anyway and those who believe him would have believed him, those that forgive anything he does would have forgiven him.

Let's say Bill Clinton had had to pay off Monica Lewinsky to keep that under wraps. And let's say he'd covered up the cash payment it with some creative campaign fund accounting, and then it came to light later. If he was up in a criminal court on felony charges, four years after his presidency, with a republican president in power, I think we'd all be screaming bloody murder.

People have already gone to jail over this, it was a crime yeah ?

Sounds like you're in favour of a two-tiered justice system.

[KillieRed]

The cover up of the crime was a felony. It was done to sway voters, and out of fear of a repercussion of the negative poll impact the Access Hollywood tape had on his campaign. He very much needed to keep those evangelicals onside as well as the naive independents. Far from embarrassing. What is embarrassing is that he’s been allowed to delay justice for so long, firstly by the direct actions of his handpicked Justice Department minions and now by frivolous legal machinations.

[Corkboy]

Unpopular opinion time:

While I hope he's found guilty, I think this whole trial is a joke and an embarrassment. There's just no heinous crime there, no real victim. If you could say with confidence that it swayed the election I suppose you would have something, I just don't think it would have done anything to affect the result, none of it was shocking to anyone. He would've denied it anyway and those who believe him would have believed him, those that forgive anything he does would have forgiven him.

Let's say Bill Clinton had had to pay off Monica Lewinsky to keep that under wraps. And let's say he'd covered up the cash payment it with some creative campaign fund accounting, and then it came to light later. If he was up in a criminal court on felony charges, four years after his presidency, with a republican president in power, I think we'd all be screaming bloody murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards#Indictment_and_trial

[oldfordie]

Unpopular opinion time:

While I hope he's found guilty, I think this whole trial is a joke and an embarrassment. There's just no heinous crime there, no real victim. If you could say with confidence that it swayed the election I suppose you would have something, I just don't think it would have done anything to affect the result, none of it was shocking to anyone. He would've denied it anyway and those who believe him would have believed him, those that forgive anything he does would have forgiven him.

Let's say Bill Clinton had had to pay off Monica Lewinsky to keep that under wraps. And let's say he'd covered up the cash payment it with some creative campaign fund accounting, and then it came to light later. If he was up in a criminal court on felony charges, four years after his presidency, with a republican president in power, I think we'd all be screaming bloody murder.

It's not the original crime that's brings the downfall of these people, it's the crimes they commit trying to cover it up, they are more serious crimes in a lot of cases, in this case election fraud, I actually mentioned this a few days ago, am looking forward to this trial forcing Trump to answer questions under oath, this could get far worse for Trump if he goes on the witness stand and lies. he would then be guilty of perjury.

[Mumm-Ra]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards#Indictment_and_trial

Yeah I vaguely remembered that, couldn't remember how it ended. Reading the results of that trial it seems like that was a big waste of time and all.

On a fundamental level, I just don't care about politicians having affairs. At all, regardless of what side they're on (doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy some gossip about someone I don't like, I'm only human). Seems completely irrelevant and prudish to think otherwise.

Paying hush money to someone to stop them exposing an embarrassing (but consensual, not illegal or underage) affair doesn't outrage me. If anything the person receiving the hush money to keep quiet about something they willingly did seems more morally at fault, but whatever, more power to them, they don't outrage me either. As long as there's no crime, no victim, it's just a seedy little transaction between two people.

As far as campaign finance violations, if you're fleecing your contributors to spend money on cars and holidays, that should be punished. If you're hiding contributions from foreign govts or shady bad actors, that should be punished. But this was just...what? A bit of accounting to conceal a hush money payment about an affair which as I said, I don't care about.

Just doesn't get my justice juices flowing, what can I say. I'm fine with it being exposed and reported on, if politicians are trying to act morally superior their hypocrisy should be laid bare, but criminal trials? Take the name Trump out of the story and replace it with Clinton and I'd say the same thing, and I bet a few of you would be more inclined to agree.

[Corkboy]

Paying hush money to someone to stop them exposing an embarrassing (but consensual, not illegal or underage) affair doesn't outrage me. If anything the person receiving the hush money to keep quiet about something they willingly did seems more morally at fault, but whatever, more power to them, they don't outrage me either. As long as there's no crime, no victim, it's just a seedy little transaction between two people.

He isn't being charged for the hush money payment. As you say, that's actually no big deal.

He is being charged because, being the typical grifter he is, he got his then lawyer to make the payments and then paid him back by pretending he was getting legal services. That's falsifying documents, tax evasion and breach of campaign laws, and the lawyer in question has already done time for that offence.

If he had simply written the woman a cheque from his own money, he probably wouldn't be facing charges now.

[Mumm-Ra]

He isn't being charged for the hush money payment. As you say, that's actually no big deal.

He is being charged because, being the typical grifter he is, he got his then lawyer to make the payments and then paid him back by pretending he was getting legal services. That's falsifying documents, tax evasion and breach of campaign laws, and the lawyer in question has already done time for that offence.

If he had simply written the woman a cheque from his own money, he probably wouldn't be facing charges now.

I know. I still don't see a victim anywhere. In fact I think the way Cohen did it he actually paid the IRS more tax than they would have got otherwise.

[PaulF]

I think I'm with mum ra that it feels there are bigger fish to fry.  It's not trivial but you can see his supporters treating it as a witch hunt.
I guess the biggest harm should be to his reputation. He will be exposed as a liar and con man etc. But nothing new there.

I do agree he should be prosecuted in full. Not sure the huge expense is in the public interest though.

Thanks for the replies about jury direction. If only it covered pgmol.

[Jiminy Cricket]

It's not the original crime that's brings the downfall of these people, it's the crimes they commit trying to cover it up, they are more serious crimes in a lot of cases, in this case election fraud, I actually mentioned this a few days ago, am looking forward to this trial forcing Trump to answer questions under oath, this could get far worse for Trump if he goes on the witness stand and lies. he would then be guilty of perjury.

I saw you write something similar, yesterday. Trump is not forced to testify. And the sensible money is him choosing not to do so.

[exiledintheUSA]

Interestingly 3 of the selected jurors are lawyers.

Correction - 1 selected, the other 2 have not been dismissed and remain a possibility for the alternate seats.

[John C]

I know. I still don't see a victim anywhere. In fact I think the way Cohen did it he actually paid the IRS more tax than they would have got otherwise.

There doesn't have to be a direct victim for a serious crime to be committed.
to be honest mate you're making a silly argument. Tax, business & election laws are devised to be adhered to, if people (particularly grifters like him) break the law then a crime is committed and punishment should be dealt.

[Corkboy]

I know. I still don't see a victim anywhere. In fact I think the way Cohen did it he actually paid the IRS more tax than they would have got otherwise.

There are two sets of victims.

Firstly, the taxpayers and all the people who do play by the rules of business accounting.

Secondly, the people who might not have voted for Trump if they knew he was banging someone else while his wife was nursing their newborn child. He obviously felt the story would be damaging to him otherwise he wouldn't have gone to such lengths to cover it up. 2016 was a tight election and that could have swayed it the other way.

[Corkboy]

I think I'm with mum ra that it feels there are bigger fish to fry. 

There are, and they are being fried. This case just happened to get to trial first. There's no rule that "lesser" cases get ignored.

Like, if you are being done for murder, would you seriously argue that your drunk driving offence from the day before be ignored because it's small fry?

[CowboyKangaroo]

This isn't about hush money. Its about the false classification of that money as legal expenses. I don't think it is tax evasion though, as there seems to be no suggestion that this payment was treated as an allowable deduction, though the prosecution is arguing that they would have at some point.

Business records are treated as a serious matter in the US, and whilst it would likely just result in a fine here in the UK (provided all the proper tax is paid) or even result in Trump being personally liable if the payment was made contra company law, it is perfectly reasonable for the US to have a different approach. (I understand it is a class E felony - so the lowest order offence which is not a misdemeanour - I see no reason why that should deter a prosecution).

[oldfordie]

I saw you write something similar, yesterday. Trump is not forced to testify. And the sensible money is him choosing not to do so.

I did assume he had no choice with him saying he will testify, it's a bit confusing, UK Law is different, nobody can be sent to prison in a UK Civil trial, the are saying Trumps trial is a civil criminal case and he could go to prison, it seems contradictory, this trial has been brought by Alvan Bragg, Manhattan DA. how can it be a civil case, not that I doubt what you say, just seems crazy that someone can refuse to take the stand in a criminal case.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I did assume he had no choice with him saying he will testify, it's a bit confusing, UK Law is different, nobody can be sent to prison in a UK Civil trial, the are saying Trumps trial is a civil criminal case and he could go to prison, it seems contradictory, this trial has been brought by Alvan Bragg, Manhattan DA. how can it be a civil case, not that I doubt what you say, just seems crazy that someone can refuse to take the stand in a criminal case.

No, this is a criminal trial. You are probably thinking of the E Jean Carroll case, which indeed was civil.

[killer-heels]

Cant he just be assassinated?

[CowboyKangaroo]

I did assume he had no choice with him saying he will testify, it's a bit confusing, UK Law is different, nobody can be sent to prison in a UK Civil trial, the are saying Trumps trial is a civil criminal case and he could go to prison, it seems contradictory, this trial has been brought by Alvan Bragg, Manhattan DA. how can it be a civil case, not that I doubt what you say, just seems crazy that someone can refuse to take the stand in a criminal case.

This is a criminal trial. In both the UK and the US you can refuse to testify as the defendant. However, in the UK adverse inferences can be made against you for failing to give evidence. In the US, there is a constitutional right which permits a defendant in a criminal trial to not testify and generally for no adverse inferences can be drawn (provided that the defendant explicitly exercises this right). In the US adverse inferences can be drawn in civil cases where a party does not testify.

[oldfordie]

No, this is a criminal trial. You are probably thinking of the E Jean Carroll case, which indeed was civil.

I see. ive got it wrong. thats a bummer, I was looking forward to him taking the stand, ahh well another 3 trials after this and they are more serious.
 He has said he will testify , imagine he will say his lawyers dragged him away kicking and screaming telling him your innocent, they have no evidence so why answer questions. he would be a fool to testify as even he knows he has a big gob.

[oldfordie]

This is a criminal trial. In both the UK and the US you can refuse to testify as the defendant. However, in the UK adverse inferences can be made against you for failing to give evidence. In the US, there is a constitutional right which permits a defendant in a criminal trial to not testify and generally for no adverse inferences can be drawn (provided that the defendant explicitly exercises this right). In the US adverse inferences can be drawn in civil cases where a party does not testify.

Yeah, I thought it just applied to civil trials,  I thought all those killers running into court with a coat over there heads only went because they forced too give evidence.

[Red Beret]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/CMBmrkglgD8&amp;ab_channel=FarronBalanced" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/CMBmrkglgD8&amp;ab_channel=FarronBalanced</a>

If Trump is a no show, it will damage his appeal - assuming it doesn't land his lard arse in jail.

[Corkboy]

In the US, there is a constitutional right which permits a defendant in a criminal trial to not testify and generally for no adverse inferences can be drawn

Juries still pay attention. No amount of jury direction can change that. They’ll form their own view as to why he’s not testifying.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Yeah, I thought it just applied to civil trials,  I thought all those killers running into court with a coat over there heads only went because they forced too give evidence.

The accused are generally compelled to attend the court proceedinga. But they are not compelled to testify.

[KillieRed]

Cant he just be assassinated?

Go for it!

One of my daughter’s friends said she’d be up for, all 7 stones of her. Her friends all loathe him.

[KurtVerbose]

Juries still pay attention. No amount of jury direction can change that. They’ll form their own view as to why he’s not testifying.

Criminal defendants more often than not don't testify in the US. It's rarely to their advantage. For a start, it allows the prosecution to bring up past convictions, and the NY DA has just submitted a document asking the judge to approve a list of subjects allowable for cross examination including

• the Trump University fraud case
• the criminal fraud case
• the civil fraud case
• the rape case X 2
• the Hilary case where he was fined close to $1m for bringing a ridiculous case.
• gag order violations, including lying under oath.

Granted a lot of these will be known to the jury, but he would be annihilated by a good prosecution lawyer if he took the stand. He would also more than likely purger himself.

[afc tukrish]

Criminal defendants more often than not don't testify in the US. It's rarely to their advantage. For a start, it allows the prosecution to bring up past convictions, and the NY DA has just submitted a document asking the judge to approve a list of subjects allowable for cross examination including

• the Trump University fraud case
• the criminal fraud case
• the civil fraud case
• the rape case X 2
• the Hilary case where he was fined close to $1m for bringing a ridiculous case.
• gag order violations, including lying under oath.

Granted a lot of these will be known to the jury, but he would be annihilated by a good prosecution lawyer if he took the stand. He would also more than likely purger himself.

On the witness stand, instead of in the bog?

[Riquende]

He would also more than likely purger himself.

It's perjure. I'll assume you know that and were momentarily confused by Trump's penchant for Hampurgers.

Cant he just be assassinated?

I don't think the judge has got that option open to him.

[KurtVerbose]

It's perjure. I'll assume you know that and were momentarily confused by Trump's penchant for Hampurgers.

I don't think the judge has got that option open to him.

I wrote pujure but the spell check said it was wrong and suggested purger. I wonder if anyone else has made the same mistake but in a court room?

[oldfordie]

Trump jury sworn in.
7 Men. 5 Woman.

[GreatEx]

1 TV?

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Free BBQ outside the courthouse.

[CornerFlag]

That's fucked up.

[thejbs]

I was WhatsApped the video and played it without having heard the news. Absolutely shocking. I would advise avoiding it. There’s no way he’s survived. second self-immolation this year in the states.

[TSC]

https://abc7ny.com/man-apparently-sets-himself-on-fire-outside-nyc-courthouse-where-trump-is-trial/14695794/

[thejbs]

At least he didn’t go down the terrorist route of trying to take people out.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Free BBQ outside the courthouse.

That's fucked up.

The incident, the comment above, or both? Surely, both.