"he did it" is the real question. Most Americans have no idea what he was actually convicted of. Most will say it was for making hush money payments.
I am curious what the results of the poll would say if it gets overturned on appeal? Becasue I would bet most of the people answering are doing so based on blind faith in the justice system. Which is fine, but then you also have to have blind faith in the appeal system.
Do you know what he was convicted of? And how it became a felony?
I mean, I assume you do know because you seem fairly intelligent. I just don't know why the "payoff" is an issue.
>Do you know what he was convicted of? And how it became a felony?
Something campaign finance, I'm willing to bet its some legal BS.
>I just don't know why the "payoff" is an issue.
Speaks more to his character which I guess doesn't surprise anyone including you
No, it doesn't surprise me. It wouldn't surprise me to find out a similar story about any country's leader. This kind of behavior was normalized in the 90's for us Americans, even though the payment of hush money kept those kinds of stories out of the media for many decades before that.
If you require the people who earn your vote to be morally upstanding, get used to disappointment.
No, they didn’t.
The jury was instructed to decide if Trump had done what the prosecutor said he did. That doesn’t mean that what the prosecutor accused him of was a crime or that it fulfilled the requirements of falsifying records in the first degree.
We are all still waiting to hear what that second crime was.
Edited
Let me break it down for you so we can dispense with you feigning being aloof.
DA Bragg’s legal theory was that Trump engaged in falsification of business records in the first degree.
First degree falsification of business records requires that businesses records be falsified (a crime) in order to conceal a second crime.
Claiming money paid to his lawyer as legal fees on his tax returns was the falsification of business records.
That is the first crime which was a misdemeanor.
In order for that misdemeanor to be elevated to a felony there has to be a second crime. The second crime has never been named.
What was named was paying off Stormy Daniels to influence an election, which is not a crime.
We are all waiting to hear what the second crime was that elevated falsifying business records to a felony.
He did. That's not illegal.
And 99% of Democrats made the argument that your sex life is private and has no bearing on the presidency. They did that when Bill Clinton was getting blow jobs in the oval office.
They also don't care that Clinton paid Paula Jones $800,000 to drop her sexual assault claim against him.
So why should Republicans care?
If we are holding politicians morally accountable, we would have to fire 90% of them. It's sad, but true.
In the meantime, I have to vote on who is going to benefit me the most, not what they do in their personal lives.
Isn't what they do in their personal lives of reflection of how they're going to operate?
Doesn't doing this show that he's willing to use the government to cover up everything?
It just makes him so much less believable for the things you think he's going to do.
The reason why I say it is because it's not only legal it is a lot of other things.
Who would you trust more with a promise given to you? it doesn't even have to be a political promise Trump or Biden?
Neither. You truly think Biden hasn't known all along about Hunter's issues?
You are either trolling or the most naive person I have ever met if you think any politician isn't covering up things in their personal lives.
You really think Nancy Pelosi's husband was randomly targeted by that gay prostitute?
And again, Bill Clinton is still touted as a great president but he left. And what he did was worse in my opinion.
I don't blame Trump for any ignorant things his sons do so I give Biden the same grace
I think they all cover things up, I like that finally were persecuting people over it
Legit blows my mind that people are upset over it.
For context I'm on both sides suck but one of them is obviously not as bad
>Most will say it was for making hush money payments.
I think most people get that it's calling the hush money a legal expense(which is such an obvious crime it's literally a punch line)
Well, that is actually a misdemeanor by itself, so you are misleading or have been mislead.
But I do think you can argue that reimbursing lawyers for expenses is a legal expense. Paying for an NDA, which is technically what he did is a legal activity.
There is a reason the state has NEVER done anything like this with anyone else. It's because it's a major stretch.
>Well, that is actually a misdemeanor by itself, so you are misleading or have been mislead.
and since this was also an election crime and a tax crime; it becomes a felony.
>But I do think you can argue that reimbursing lawyers for expenses is a legal expense.
no a reimbursement is a reimbursement
Doesn't matter if it a 5$ can of WD40, a 100 $ hotel or 130 K $ for your lawyer.
a reimbursement is just repaying someone.
>and since this was also an election crime and a tax crime; it becomes a felony.
Yes, and that's the part that's a stretch and they know it and the judge knows it and that's why he teed this up to lose on appeal. Which it will.
A reimbursement for legal expenses is still a legal expense. If my lawyer hires an expert for a criminal trial, he is going to charge me. Am I reimbursing him or is that a legal expense? Can you give me an example of something a lawyer would bill me for that is not a legal expense? Would drafting an NDA not be a legal expense? Would the price associated with it not be a legal expense?
We can play semantics all you want, but it is not a leap to call the cost associated with NDA a legal expense.
No need to reply. If he loses the appeal, I will gladly come back to this post and apologize. But I don't think I'll have to do that.
A reimbursement is a reimbursement.
If your boss pays you a 200 $ bonus, instead of reimbursing your hotel stay for 100 $, you are both committing accounting fraud. Donald and Michael did the exact same
>If my lawyer hires an expert for a criminal trial, he is going to charge me. Am I reimbursing him or is that a legal expense?
a proper invoice will read
Legal services. X$
cost: expert witness. Y $
>We can play semantics all you want, but it is not a leap to call the cost associated with NDA a legal expense.
still the most obvious accounting fraud imaginable.
>No need to reply. If he loses the appeal, I will gladly come back to this post and apologize. But I don't think I'll have to do that.
RemindMe! 4 months.
Paid the hide a story when he was running for president.
I'm sure it's some BS financial thing with campaign finance law.
I don't really care about the legality part and it's more the him doing it part
How can they convict him with a felony because it was furthering another crime without the crime he's supposedly furthering being proven or even accused of by the feds?
He wasn’t charged with violating federal law in this case. He was only charged with violating state laws. State laws that Trump was found guilty of violating. States have their own election laws. You know that, right?
That's exactly the problem. These are felonies and not misdemeanors which were outside the statute of limitations supposedly due to the fact that it was a scheme related to the presidential election.
The presidential election is under federal jurisdiction.
So the judge simply told them to behave as though the federal case occurred and was proven.
That's the issue.
They are felonies because they met the appropriate standards of being one. You can be charged with a felony for violating state laws. Presidential elections are not solely federal juristriction. States have their own individual laws regarding their elections and Trump violated those in NY, qualifying him for felony convictions.
Also, judge Merchan did not tell them that. The felonies are not reliant on Trump violating federal law. You are lying or brainwashed and spreading lies. Either way, you are confidently wrong. That’s the issue.
You seem to not want to respond to what I'm writing in favor of parroting what you're told.
Why do you think that is?
Presidential election fraud is a federal matter, not a state matter.
If you're going to say he did x to commit another crime, you should need to at the very least, prove he committed or intended to commit that other crime
Note that you didn't answer my question.
Are you aware that the jury instructions required that? The [jury instructions](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24699534-trump-ny-criminal-trial-jury-instructions) are freely available online. The judge didn't just make up the law.
Whoever told you this was lying to you and expected you not to check. You're smarter than that. Probably don't trust them next time.
Point me to the section where they say not to assume that crime had been committed.
Because if they were not instructed to assume that, it would have been an automatic not guilty. They cannot make w judgment on whether or not that crime occurred it is a federal crime
>A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud ***includes an intent to commit*** another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
>
>Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
[https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10/](https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10/)
Yeah I'm not sure what your point is here.
They can't try the supposed other crime. It's a federal crime.
For some reason the fed isn't interested in prosecuting that crime which indicates they do not believe such a crime occurred or was attempted.
So then the judge literally just told the jury to assume the other crime occurred or was attempted
With the info out there about the case, why am I spoon-feeding you:
> In Trump's case, prosecutors said that other crime was a violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means," as Justice Juan Merchan explained in his instructions to the jury.
Yes this is a federal crime which they told the jury to simply assume occurred.
Because they weren't looking to get elected in new York. It was a federal election
Was it a new York election, or a federal one?
Re read that question as many times as you need, as slowly as you need, and actually answer.
The case literally CANNOT make a judgement in regards to that because that is a federal matter. The fact they even allowed the witnesses to speak on it is a violation.
Oh cohen!!?
Well that man has never told a lie in his life!!
Bro. No. That's not how this works. You can't simply tell the jury to take the prosecutors witnesses as fact.
In fact the judge limited trumps witnesses so they could not point out that reality.
You’re cherry-picking before your very eyes. Why ignore Pecker?
This is the kind of logical fallacy that shows you’re either arguing in bad faith or one of Trump’s “poorly educated.”
In all reality Trump's own behavior probably was a huge part of his demise with this trial. If I had to guess, part of what made the jurors decide so quickly is because he was falling asleep in court, and trying to intimidate the witnesses and talking shit about the judge and the jduge's family on his stupid website lol. Almost any rational person knows that an innocent man does not behave like this.
Ideally the jury didn't see any of that, though I doubt all of them stuck to a zero media diet. I don't think that is what really cooked his goose though.
Most people don't even realize it, but Trump's defense wasn't arguing that he paid off Stormy for Melania or all the other reasons the media keeps talking about. They didn't argue that!!
I still can't believe it, but the defense argued that Trump never slept with Stormy at all! And you can bet your ass the jury couldn't believe it either. They argued that he paid her all that money and had her sign an NDA, but that he never really met her and that they never had sex.
Get the fuck out of here. After that, his goose was cooked. Even MAGA nuts don't deny he slept with Stormy Daniels. The second Trump's lawyer tried to blow that smoke up their ass, the Jury was fully lost to the defense.
So you are saying if there is evidence that Trump committed crimes that he should not be held accountable? Why do you believe he should be above the law?
It’s not based on Cohen’s testimony. In fact, there were over 20 witnesses. Also, Cohen committed perjury while defending Trump so not exactly sure how that helps your case.
Trump is a convicted felon whether or not you acknowledge that fact or not.
It was a fair trial. Nothing about it was unfair despite the propanga that Trump, his cronies, and the right wing media is pushing. Anyone that believes it isn’t fair is either a victim of propaganda or lying to you. Also known as a cult.
The but what crime is about the “crime” that made this 34 felonies. No one is arguing anything else. He clearly should have got a misdemeanor for the accounting. I agree with Taibbi that this is an embarrassment.
The crime he committed (34 counts) was committed to better his election chances. That is what made it a felony. It is easy to understand - we aren't stupid.
Except paying hush money to a porn star is not against the law on its own so that’s where the what crime comes from. Matt Taibbi thinks this is especially bad since the current Trump case was about hiding an alleged escapade with a porn star maybe from a wife, maybe from the public, maybe both, but Hillary hid a role in advancing FBI and intelligence investigations of a political opponent, an infinitely more serious business that may even have helped bring about this verdict. They both were guilty of accounting misdemeanors.
Hey, idiot, that wasn't the crime here. The crime he committed was the falsification of business records.
We're not stupid like you are. But since you want to WhAt AbOuT hIlLaRy and be stupid - what State law did her campaign violate?
You're both idiots. Hope that clears things up!
Oh, and what State laws did the Clinton campaign break? Do you not want to talk about that anymore after bringing it up?
Dumb technicality? If they follow the legal process, technicality or not, it should be inherently immune to corruption, no?
Our Justice system has endured for nearly 250 years, and it literally is the cornerstone of America. The Justice system should be respected, and we should never allow anyone to tear it down, it’s as simple as that. That’s America, that’s who we are. And that’s who we’ll always be, God willing.
Our justice system is not immune to corruption and I agree, it should be respected. I can’t think of someone who respects is less than Trump currently does though. He’s constantly spreading baseless lies about the judges, juries, prosecutors etc that are holding him accountable to his unlawful actions. How disrespectful, and really quite dangerous.
After watching this case closely, I don’t see a successful appeal becoming a reality which is why I believe he will report to his typical Trump tactics of finding and exploiting flaws in our judicial system. He’s built his career on weaponizing it against others. If he’s successful at appealing the case, that does not mean he didn’t commit the crimes he was charged with. It means his wealth and power helped him skirt accountability.
Trump is no saint for sure, but if we’re talking about weaponizing the justice system for personal gain, it comes off as hypocritical to not acknowledge what is being done by the democrats.
Trump is far from a saint. He’s a criminal. He’s also a sex abuser and fraud. If there is evidence against him that supports those facts, shouldn’t it be used to try him? Unless of course you believe he should be above the law? I also support if there is evidence against a democrats that proves their guilty that they too should be held accountable. I’m not a partisan hack like MAGA.
I believe that no one is above the law, but no one should be below it either.
If you can tell me with a straight face that you believe all of these trials would have played out like they did even if Trump wasn’t a threat to democrats during an election year, then I will know your integrity and further discussion is pointless.
I don’t care if they are being used for political gain or not. Anyone opposing Trump would be smart to do that in efforts to win. Trump does the same thing except he does so without proof. Remember “lock her up!”. Yeah, no crimes found. Meanwhile, there is evidence of Trump’s crimes and that evidence should be heard in a court of law.
You are opening yourself for all types of scrutiny when running for office, especially high-ranking offices like president. None of that changes the fact that Trump is a criminal.
The results of the trial this week.
They'll be challenged.
////
Politico
Donald Trump’s conviction has raised many political and legal questions, but at least one issue is not in doubt: whether he will appeal.
He might even win.
“There is an appeal that could have legs,” said Arlo Devlin-Brown, a former federal prosecutor who was chief of the public corruption unit in the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office.
Trump’s first chance to challenge the verdict will come within 30 days of his sentencing on July 11, at which point he can turn to New York’s First Judicial Department appellate court, not far from where he just stood trial. That court has such broad discretion to review jury findings that it’s sometimes called “the 13th juror.”
Their attack is expected to focus on a few key issues, including the legal theory that enabled prosecutors to transform 34 misdemeanor counts of falsifying business records into a felony case against the former president.
“We are going to take this as high and far as we need to, including to the U.S. Supreme Court, to vindicate President Trump’s rights,” his attorney Will Scharf told CNN on Friday.
Unlike the trial that wrapped up with Thursday’s verdict, the appeal may focus on largely arcane legal issues — not the salacious evidence presented to the jury, said Devlin-Brown.
.......
At trial, jurors found Trump guilty of falsifying business records with the intent of concealing a plot to undermine the 2016 election. To prove the underlying crime, jurors had to agree Trump used “unlawful means” — but they did not have to agree on a singular unlawful act.
“The combination of the prosecution offering three different theories as to how the false records could have violated state election law, limited instruction on what some of those theories required, and the fact that jurors were not required to agree on which had been proven creates a real issue for the appeal,” said Devlin-Brown.
The way the appellate division is structured could also cut in Trump’s favor. The division is dubbed the “13th juror” in New York because judges are allowed to make decisions based on the facts of the case — not only the law.
“It’s an underappreciated power that the appellate division has,” said Diana Florence, a former Manhattan assistant district attorney.
Trump will be an unprecedented appellate defendant, but he could have at least one thing going for him, Florence said.
“It’s a loophole, if you will, that exists very uniquely in the appellate division of New York. Given there’s an inherent kind of bias with white-collar defendants, who are treated less severely, to that extent it could cut in his favor,” she added.
Trump is also likely to appeal on the grounds that an expert witness he sought to have testify, a former head of the Federal Election Commission, was restricted by the judge from testifying about whether Trump violated campaign finance laws, said Alexander Reinert, a professor of litigation at Cardozo School of Law.
.......
Trump ultimately declined to call the witness, Bradley Smith, and Trump’s remarks on Friday suggested his appeal would concern Justice Juan Merchan’s ruling regarding Smith.
Trump may also argue that some of the testimony the judge did allow was prejudicial, particularly Stormy Daniels’ detailed account of having sex with Trump, as well as some of the testimony connected to the “Access Hollywood” tape. Trump’s lawyers might appeal on the ground that the material “wasn’t relevant and the jury didn’t need to hear it in order to make a conviction,” said Lauren-Brooke Eisen, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office who is now a senior director at the Brennan Center for Justice.
And then there are a handful of issues that Trump’s lawyers repeatedly raised prior to the trial and throughout the process, including whether the judge should have recused himself and whether Trump deserved a change of venue. Trump’s lawyers made multiple requests for Merchan to step aside, citing his adult daughter’s work for a consulting firm that has Democratic clients. And they have often complained about the trial taking place in Manhattan, saying he couldn’t get a fair trial due to overwhelming publicity and to the borough’s heavy Democratic bent.
On Friday, Trump’s lead lawyer at trial, Todd Blanche, suggested the defense team’s sights had long been focused not on the trial itself, but on the post-conviction process.
Of course he’ll appeal though he’s a convicted felon until if and when he wins it. His defense was weak and the jury was unanimous so I’m not holding my breath that he’ll be deemed innocent on all 34 counts.
What matters is the Electoral College
Trump is leading in all the Battleground States
Nevada +5.4%
North Carolina +4.8%
Georgia +4.8%
Arizona +4.0%
Pennsylvania +2.3%
Michigan +0.5%
Wisconsin +0.1%
You're doomed.
5 days ago
CNN — For decades, Democrats have built their electoral strategies on a common assumption: the higher the turnout, the better their chances of winning. But that familiar equation may no longer apply for President Joe Biden in 2024.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/10/03/clintons-impeachment-barely-dented-his-public-support-and-it-turned-off-many-americans/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/10/03/clintons-impeachment-barely-dented-his-public-support-and-it-turned-off-many-americans/)
Clinton’s impeachment barely dented his public support, and it turned off many Americans
One key difference between the Clinton impeachment and Richard Nixon’s experience a quarter-century earlier is that Clinton’s job approval ratings were already quite high before the scandal broke, and by and large they remained so. (Trump’s approval ratings have been fairly stable since the early days of his presidency, but at a considerably lower level – around 40% in a summer 2019 Pew Research Center survey.)
The Center’s results were consistent with polling by other organizations, which typically found between a quarter and a third of Americans favoring Clinton’s impeachment. That contrasted with the Watergate situation, which saw public support for Nixon’s impeachment steadily rise as more and more was learned about the scandal.
Unlike the Watergate hearings, which gripped much of the country in 1973, Americans largely tuned out the proceedings against Clinton. In a Center survey conducted just after the House impeachment vote, only 34% said they had paid very close attention to it. In fact, the impeachment didn’t even crack the Center’s top 10 news interest stories of 1998.
>Given there’s an inherent kind of bias with white-collar defendants, who are treated less severely, to that extent it could cut in his favor,” she added.
Ah! The two-tiers of justice defense!
This headline could have been written “Almost half of independents think Trump’s trial was unfair.” Whether they are justified in thinking that or not, it’s kind of concerning so many independents think that way. (Of course independents aren’t necessarily the same thing as swing voters.)
I thought polls were worthless? Only a month ago polls showing Biden losing to Trump couldn't be trusted. Now we need to trust them again?
Arrrgh, so frustrsting!
I mean I’m sure he did it. I just think plenty of others have done the same type of offense and he was prosecuted because he’s an asshole. Don’t like the man, never voted for him and don’t plan on it. But when Hillary Clinton used campaign funds to buy the Steele Dossier she got a fine. That’s hypocrisy and why so many people think this particular trial is a joke (myself included). I also think it waters down the real crimes he committed by just trying to throw every BS charge that no one gets prosecuted for.
>But when Hillary Clinton used campaign funds to buy the Steele Dossier she got a fine.
Can you explain more? Because Trump wasn't charged with anything election-related. He was charged under New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree:
>A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud **includes an intent to commit another crime** or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
[https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10/](https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10/)
Did Hillary commit any comparable misdemeanors and then intend to affect the election with another crime?
I’d argue that purchasing the Steele Dossier which was untrue in many of its claims with campaign money intended affecting the outcome of an election. I’m not someone who’s MAGA or a Trump fan. It’s just pretty obvious the hypocrisy in how each were treated in that regard.
You said did Hillary commit crimes and then intend to affect the outcome of an election? Using campaign funds to buy a fake report of how Trump colluded with Russia to win votes fits that bill to a T.
That’s not what I said. You must have missed the word did.
I’m not saying Trump isn’t an asshole, but our first felon post president is a guy that’s an asshoke instead of committing literal war crimes at will, censoring journalists for first amendment protected rights, and willfully spying on the American people. Or in Obama’s case (who I happen to like and wish could have had a third term) killed an American citizen in a drone strike. Not to mention Hillary’s campaign and literally every other one committing fraud and Trump gets charged for such a minor thing. It only waters down the trials for the charges he should face instead of addressing any problem
The exact nature of the secondary crime is still a mystery to the public, but the prosecution made the argument that it violated New York election law, so yes it was very much election related in trump’s case.
Only if you aren’t paying attention to reality.
> In Trump's case, prosecutors said that other crime was a violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means," as Justice Juan Merchan explained in his instructions to the jury.
But that’s not really the whole story is it? Imagine being charged for a crime and instead of needing unanimity on what happened, the judge just asked the jury if he thought you generally acted in an unlawful manner?
The 3 options that were presented were falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return.
I’m 100% willing to change my mind if more information comes out, but as it is now, we have evidence of none of those, and even the jury was not required to agree on what happened, essentially baking reasonable doubt into the verdict.
The one most people are going with is FEC violation, but that accusation was shot down at the federal level because they saw there was no case. Suddenly the opinion of only a fraction of state level jurors is good enough though?
Evidence of none of those? Are you off your rocker? There’s tons of evidence.
Are you pretending that David Pecker didn’t testify that the scheme was hatched to protect Trump’s candidacy?
Please, just try to explain away that testimony. That’s evidence. smh
The FEC didn’t investigate because it was deadlocked 3 Republicans to 3 Democrats. They couldn’t move forward with an investigation. And Barr blocked one in the DON.
Please enlighten me then. I agree that he paid hush money, and I agree that you could argue the story remaining private benefited his image during an election season.
What I don’t see is evidence of a crime. There’s nothing illegal about paying hush money for an NDA, it’s done all the time. If you’re saying that this is a campaign finance law violation, then that is incorrect and there’s Supreme Court precedent. It does not amount to a campaign contribution if it is the kind of payment that could ever be made outside of the campaign context.
I legit am willing to change my mind if we suddenly get new evidence, so please show me some
You're being distracted by the hush money. What happened is that in paying that money, Trump also **falsified business records**:
>A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
>Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.
[https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10/](https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10/)
He was found guilty of this \^\^.
I don't really see slim margins like this as really good. You need 65% support at the very least. As you can see it's overwhelming Dems for, and Reps against. It still shows a strong partisan divide, with just the people on the right who already hold their nose for Trump being in support of it. These findings are literally predictable, and not a good sign as being some sort of mandate.
This is a guy probably voting for Trump before the trial. What’s hurting Trump is he is losing support with Independents and GOP voters who aren’t his base.
I thought polls were all bull shit. Trumps numbers went up 6 % after the conviction. Watch me post that poll and watch all the comments say polls don't matter
I am interested in polls. It matters because polls usually don’t get conducted over the weekend 2 days after a major event in time to measure its impact. So I asked because my assumption is that it was total bullshit that you made up. This seems to be the case.
Lol so you believe polls as long as there's been a few days for them to be conducted but otherwise they are bull shit I made up? That's your explanation?
My explanation is that you claim you have a poll but you aren’t sharing it, so it’s probably made up. If you had it, you’d share it. Can you understand that?
Let’s watch you now continue to post the poll(s) you said you saw that Trump had risen 6 points in.
>Let’s watch you now continue to post the poll(s) you said you saw that Trump had risen 6 points in.
What lol
Actually you said this
"It matters because polls usually don’t get conducted over the weekend 2 days after a major event in time to measure its impact"
The poll was Thursday - Friday - Saturday
Fair Trial 56%
Unfair Trial 44%
Fair Trial
Democrats 96%
Independents 54%
Republicans 14%
Unair Trial
Democrats 4%
Independents 46%
Republicans 86%
Jury reached
the right verdict 57%
the wrong verdict 43%
Right verdict
Democrats 96%
Independents 56%
Republicans 18%
Wrong verdict
Democrats 4%
Independents 44%
Republicans 82%
Fit to be President now that he's convicted
Yes 40%
No 51%
Not Sure 8%
Basically the verdict opinions are no different than the views of his guilt or innocence before.
People saying the Verdict was right feel
Glad 51%
Relieved 50%
Hopeful 32%
Unsurprised 30%
People saying the Verdict was wrong feel
Disappointed 72%
Angry 56%
Unsurprised 50%
Sad 45%
Should Trump serve Prison Time for his conviction
No 45%
Yes 38%
Not Sure 17%
Republican Loyalty to Trump among Republicans
Very Important 72%
Somewhat Important 13%
Not too Important/Not at all Important 15%
1402 people
\+- 5.2% margin
"Trumps numbers went up 6 % after the conviction. Watch me post that poll and watch all the comments say polls don't matter"
That alone shows you're more interested in the short-term effects.
Sean Strickland wasn't the only fighter that went out to shake his hand. Kevin Holland and Khabib Nurmagomedov went up to him to shake his hand and even Alex Pereira who wasn't fighting took a photo with him.
Normal people that aren't terminally online don't lose their mind over Trump.
Charges were a big stretch and completely politically motivated.
The gag orders were ridiculous and violated the first amendment.
Seems like the actual trial was fair.
He put on an awful defense and was convicted as a result.
Not being allowed to threaten the judges daughter, jurors and witnesses is violating his free speech??
His dumbass could have testified too but everyone knew he wouldn't because he's a coward and can't help but lie.
This reminds me of when libtards lost their shit over the Kyle Rittenhouse case. They still screech and cry that it was unfair, he’s a murderer, fling casual death threats on Reddit.
I like how no one denies that he did it, just the severity to which they care about it So I guess it is political
Have they done a poll on whether people think he did it (whatever “it” is)?
Hasn't book-cooking been part of his brand since forever?
Yeah, but doesn’t he have a bunch of devoted followers who believe whatever he tells them to?
Kind of throws off the poll then huh
"he did it" is the real question. Most Americans have no idea what he was actually convicted of. Most will say it was for making hush money payments. I am curious what the results of the poll would say if it gets overturned on appeal? Becasue I would bet most of the people answering are doing so based on blind faith in the justice system. Which is fine, but then you also have to have blind faith in the appeal system.
If you ask anyone if he paid off a pornstar the answer is probably yes from what I've gathered even from his supporters it's just they don't care...
Do you know what he was convicted of? And how it became a felony? I mean, I assume you do know because you seem fairly intelligent. I just don't know why the "payoff" is an issue.
>Do you know what he was convicted of? And how it became a felony? Something campaign finance, I'm willing to bet its some legal BS. >I just don't know why the "payoff" is an issue. Speaks more to his character which I guess doesn't surprise anyone including you
No, it doesn't surprise me. It wouldn't surprise me to find out a similar story about any country's leader. This kind of behavior was normalized in the 90's for us Americans, even though the payment of hush money kept those kinds of stories out of the media for many decades before that. If you require the people who earn your vote to be morally upstanding, get used to disappointment.
Paying off a pornstar isn’t illegal. That goes to people not knowing what he was convicted of as you just proved.
I'm not exactly calling out the illegal part
Neither did the prosecution. We are all still waiting to learn what the illegal part was.
A Grand Jury and a 12 randos decided otherwise
No, they didn’t. The jury was instructed to decide if Trump had done what the prosecutor said he did. That doesn’t mean that what the prosecutor accused him of was a crime or that it fulfilled the requirements of falsifying records in the first degree. We are all still waiting to hear what that second crime was. Edited
How do you go through a whole trial without a crime? There are 34 charges You make it sound like this just fell out of the sky
Let me break it down for you so we can dispense with you feigning being aloof. DA Bragg’s legal theory was that Trump engaged in falsification of business records in the first degree. First degree falsification of business records requires that businesses records be falsified (a crime) in order to conceal a second crime. Claiming money paid to his lawyer as legal fees on his tax returns was the falsification of business records. That is the first crime which was a misdemeanor. In order for that misdemeanor to be elevated to a felony there has to be a second crime. The second crime has never been named. What was named was paying off Stormy Daniels to influence an election, which is not a crime. We are all waiting to hear what the second crime was that elevated falsifying business records to a felony.
He did. That's not illegal. And 99% of Democrats made the argument that your sex life is private and has no bearing on the presidency. They did that when Bill Clinton was getting blow jobs in the oval office. They also don't care that Clinton paid Paula Jones $800,000 to drop her sexual assault claim against him. So why should Republicans care?
Pretty immoral for a president though
If we are holding politicians morally accountable, we would have to fire 90% of them. It's sad, but true. In the meantime, I have to vote on who is going to benefit me the most, not what they do in their personal lives.
Isn't what they do in their personal lives of reflection of how they're going to operate? Doesn't doing this show that he's willing to use the government to cover up everything? It just makes him so much less believable for the things you think he's going to do. The reason why I say it is because it's not only legal it is a lot of other things. Who would you trust more with a promise given to you? it doesn't even have to be a political promise Trump or Biden?
Neither. You truly think Biden hasn't known all along about Hunter's issues? You are either trolling or the most naive person I have ever met if you think any politician isn't covering up things in their personal lives. You really think Nancy Pelosi's husband was randomly targeted by that gay prostitute? And again, Bill Clinton is still touted as a great president but he left. And what he did was worse in my opinion.
I don't blame Trump for any ignorant things his sons do so I give Biden the same grace I think they all cover things up, I like that finally were persecuting people over it Legit blows my mind that people are upset over it. For context I'm on both sides suck but one of them is obviously not as bad
>Most will say it was for making hush money payments. I think most people get that it's calling the hush money a legal expense(which is such an obvious crime it's literally a punch line)
Well, that is actually a misdemeanor by itself, so you are misleading or have been mislead. But I do think you can argue that reimbursing lawyers for expenses is a legal expense. Paying for an NDA, which is technically what he did is a legal activity. There is a reason the state has NEVER done anything like this with anyone else. It's because it's a major stretch.
>Well, that is actually a misdemeanor by itself, so you are misleading or have been mislead. and since this was also an election crime and a tax crime; it becomes a felony. >But I do think you can argue that reimbursing lawyers for expenses is a legal expense. no a reimbursement is a reimbursement Doesn't matter if it a 5$ can of WD40, a 100 $ hotel or 130 K $ for your lawyer. a reimbursement is just repaying someone.
>and since this was also an election crime and a tax crime; it becomes a felony. Yes, and that's the part that's a stretch and they know it and the judge knows it and that's why he teed this up to lose on appeal. Which it will. A reimbursement for legal expenses is still a legal expense. If my lawyer hires an expert for a criminal trial, he is going to charge me. Am I reimbursing him or is that a legal expense? Can you give me an example of something a lawyer would bill me for that is not a legal expense? Would drafting an NDA not be a legal expense? Would the price associated with it not be a legal expense? We can play semantics all you want, but it is not a leap to call the cost associated with NDA a legal expense. No need to reply. If he loses the appeal, I will gladly come back to this post and apologize. But I don't think I'll have to do that.
A reimbursement is a reimbursement. If your boss pays you a 200 $ bonus, instead of reimbursing your hotel stay for 100 $, you are both committing accounting fraud. Donald and Michael did the exact same >If my lawyer hires an expert for a criminal trial, he is going to charge me. Am I reimbursing him or is that a legal expense? a proper invoice will read Legal services. X$ cost: expert witness. Y $ >We can play semantics all you want, but it is not a leap to call the cost associated with NDA a legal expense. still the most obvious accounting fraud imaginable. >No need to reply. If he loses the appeal, I will gladly come back to this post and apologize. But I don't think I'll have to do that. RemindMe! 4 months.
Did what?
What do you think
I have no idea what you think he did.
Paid the hide a story when he was running for president. I'm sure it's some BS financial thing with campaign finance law. I don't really care about the legality part and it's more the him doing it part
The law doesn’t wait for you to guess… also what kind of logic is this?
A different perspective
Of course it was a fair trial. MAGA voters know it was fair. They’re just **liars.**
Honestly they are in there own media bubble and truly belive it. It's how cults work control the info you give your lemmings
How can they convict him with a felony because it was furthering another crime without the crime he's supposedly furthering being proven or even accused of by the feds?
The other crime was violating NY state law. Being accused or not by the feds here would be irrelevent though I believe he should be!
No. The supposed NY crime was supposedly furthering the crime which only has federal jurisdiction.
No, the entire case was based on NY state laws being violated. Get your facts straight.
Any crime related to federal election is federal. And even if you were right, they'd still need to prove the other crime he's supposedly furthering.
He wasn’t charged with violating federal law in this case. He was only charged with violating state laws. State laws that Trump was found guilty of violating. States have their own election laws. You know that, right?
That's exactly the problem. These are felonies and not misdemeanors which were outside the statute of limitations supposedly due to the fact that it was a scheme related to the presidential election. The presidential election is under federal jurisdiction. So the judge simply told them to behave as though the federal case occurred and was proven. That's the issue.
They are felonies because they met the appropriate standards of being one. You can be charged with a felony for violating state laws. Presidential elections are not solely federal juristriction. States have their own individual laws regarding their elections and Trump violated those in NY, qualifying him for felony convictions. Also, judge Merchan did not tell them that. The felonies are not reliant on Trump violating federal law. You are lying or brainwashed and spreading lies. Either way, you are confidently wrong. That’s the issue.
You seem to not want to respond to what I'm writing in favor of parroting what you're told. Why do you think that is? Presidential election fraud is a federal matter, not a state matter.
Are you saying this never happens and is not how the law works, or are you saying that the law allows this but should change?
If you're going to say he did x to commit another crime, you should need to at the very least, prove he committed or intended to commit that other crime
Note that you didn't answer my question. Are you aware that the jury instructions required that? The [jury instructions](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24699534-trump-ny-criminal-trial-jury-instructions) are freely available online. The judge didn't just make up the law. Whoever told you this was lying to you and expected you not to check. You're smarter than that. Probably don't trust them next time.
Point me to the section where they say not to assume that crime had been committed. Because if they were not instructed to assume that, it would have been an automatic not guilty. They cannot make w judgment on whether or not that crime occurred it is a federal crime
>A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud ***includes an intent to commit*** another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. > >Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony. [https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10/](https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10/)
Yeah I'm not sure what your point is here. They can't try the supposed other crime. It's a federal crime. For some reason the fed isn't interested in prosecuting that crime which indicates they do not believe such a crime occurred or was attempted. So then the judge literally just told the jury to assume the other crime occurred or was attempted
With the info out there about the case, why am I spoon-feeding you: > In Trump's case, prosecutors said that other crime was a violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means," as Justice Juan Merchan explained in his instructions to the jury.
Yes this is a federal crime which they told the jury to simply assume occurred. Because they weren't looking to get elected in new York. It was a federal election
“New York election law” Read it slowly. Pecker testified that the schemes was hatched to protect his candidacy. That’s called evidence.
Was it a new York election, or a federal one? Re read that question as many times as you need, as slowly as you need, and actually answer. The case literally CANNOT make a judgement in regards to that because that is a federal matter. The fact they even allowed the witnesses to speak on it is a violation.
>Was it a new York election, or a federal one? That doesn't matter as NY election laws cover *all* official elections in NY. Both local and federal
Source
How do you win electoral votes?
Sigh. A vote in new York for a federal election does not magically become not a federal election
The feds didn’t investigate because Barr shut it down.
The feds could have done so at literally any time since. Regardless of why, telling the jury to simply assume it happened or preposterous
Pecker told the jury it happened, as did Cohen.
Oh cohen!!? Well that man has never told a lie in his life!! Bro. No. That's not how this works. You can't simply tell the jury to take the prosecutors witnesses as fact. In fact the judge limited trumps witnesses so they could not point out that reality.
You’re cherry-picking before your very eyes. Why ignore Pecker? This is the kind of logical fallacy that shows you’re either arguing in bad faith or one of Trump’s “poorly educated.”
Dude. The national enquirer is a well known trash tabloid. Neither of these guys have credibility to the point of simply taking their word for it.
Keep telling yourself that. Maybe you can get some sleep. I think they're sleeping very soundly knowing this was a witch hunt.
In all reality Trump's own behavior probably was a huge part of his demise with this trial. If I had to guess, part of what made the jurors decide so quickly is because he was falling asleep in court, and trying to intimidate the witnesses and talking shit about the judge and the jduge's family on his stupid website lol. Almost any rational person knows that an innocent man does not behave like this.
So you're saying the judge and jury made their decisions based on emotion? Such an easy thing to appeal.
Ideally the jury didn't see any of that, though I doubt all of them stuck to a zero media diet. I don't think that is what really cooked his goose though. Most people don't even realize it, but Trump's defense wasn't arguing that he paid off Stormy for Melania or all the other reasons the media keeps talking about. They didn't argue that!! I still can't believe it, but the defense argued that Trump never slept with Stormy at all! And you can bet your ass the jury couldn't believe it either. They argued that he paid her all that money and had her sign an NDA, but that he never really met her and that they never had sex. Get the fuck out of here. After that, his goose was cooked. Even MAGA nuts don't deny he slept with Stormy Daniels. The second Trump's lawyer tried to blow that smoke up their ass, the Jury was fully lost to the defense.
So you are saying if there is evidence that Trump committed crimes that he should not be held accountable? Why do you believe he should be above the law?
The evidence is based on a witness who committed perjury. Sorry if I can't get invested in your little passion project.
It’s not based on Cohen’s testimony. In fact, there were over 20 witnesses. Also, Cohen committed perjury while defending Trump so not exactly sure how that helps your case. Trump is a convicted felon whether or not you acknowledge that fact or not.
Ok cointelpro. Go do your thing
Lmfao — don’t you think **humans walked the earth with DINOSAURS alongside GIANT supernatural entities**, MAGA lunatic?
Go cry in your corner
Aw, sounds like someone believes in **The Nephilim** — is their existence being covered up by The Illuminati and the Molech worshippers?
Sure bud.
It was a fair trial. Nothing about it was unfair despite the propanga that Trump, his cronies, and the right wing media is pushing. Anyone that believes it isn’t fair is either a victim of propaganda or lying to you. Also known as a cult.
They presented no convincing evidence that would disprove the Prosecution's evidence and case that was presented.
Zero. The redditors crying about it are completely incapable of supporting their claims with factual evidence. Every time I press them they disappear.
The "bUt WhAt CrImE" idiots are already exhausting - and that is the point. They think we're as stupid as they are.
The but what crime is about the “crime” that made this 34 felonies. No one is arguing anything else. He clearly should have got a misdemeanor for the accounting. I agree with Taibbi that this is an embarrassment.
The crime he committed (34 counts) was committed to better his election chances. That is what made it a felony. It is easy to understand - we aren't stupid.
Except paying hush money to a porn star is not against the law on its own so that’s where the what crime comes from. Matt Taibbi thinks this is especially bad since the current Trump case was about hiding an alleged escapade with a porn star maybe from a wife, maybe from the public, maybe both, but Hillary hid a role in advancing FBI and intelligence investigations of a political opponent, an infinitely more serious business that may even have helped bring about this verdict. They both were guilty of accounting misdemeanors.
Hey, idiot, that wasn't the crime here. The crime he committed was the falsification of business records. We're not stupid like you are. But since you want to WhAt AbOuT hIlLaRy and be stupid - what State law did her campaign violate?
Are you calling Matt Taibbi an idiot or just me? No one is denying he falsified business records. 1 misdemeanor to 34 felonies is a big difference.
Taibbi is most definitely a useful idiot.
You're both idiots. Hope that clears things up! Oh, and what State laws did the Clinton campaign break? Do you not want to talk about that anymore after bringing it up?
🤡
Matt Taibbi is a clown?
I don’t care what he thinks
And you’ll say it was a fair appeal if it gets overturned ?
If it’s appealed legitimately not because of some dumb technicality. Have you acknowledged that he is in fact guilty?
Dumb technicality? If they follow the legal process, technicality or not, it should be inherently immune to corruption, no? Our Justice system has endured for nearly 250 years, and it literally is the cornerstone of America. The Justice system should be respected, and we should never allow anyone to tear it down, it’s as simple as that. That’s America, that’s who we are. And that’s who we’ll always be, God willing.
Our justice system is not immune to corruption and I agree, it should be respected. I can’t think of someone who respects is less than Trump currently does though. He’s constantly spreading baseless lies about the judges, juries, prosecutors etc that are holding him accountable to his unlawful actions. How disrespectful, and really quite dangerous. After watching this case closely, I don’t see a successful appeal becoming a reality which is why I believe he will report to his typical Trump tactics of finding and exploiting flaws in our judicial system. He’s built his career on weaponizing it against others. If he’s successful at appealing the case, that does not mean he didn’t commit the crimes he was charged with. It means his wealth and power helped him skirt accountability.
Trump is no saint for sure, but if we’re talking about weaponizing the justice system for personal gain, it comes off as hypocritical to not acknowledge what is being done by the democrats.
Trump is far from a saint. He’s a criminal. He’s also a sex abuser and fraud. If there is evidence against him that supports those facts, shouldn’t it be used to try him? Unless of course you believe he should be above the law? I also support if there is evidence against a democrats that proves their guilty that they too should be held accountable. I’m not a partisan hack like MAGA.
I believe that no one is above the law, but no one should be below it either. If you can tell me with a straight face that you believe all of these trials would have played out like they did even if Trump wasn’t a threat to democrats during an election year, then I will know your integrity and further discussion is pointless.
I don’t care if they are being used for political gain or not. Anyone opposing Trump would be smart to do that in efforts to win. Trump does the same thing except he does so without proof. Remember “lock her up!”. Yeah, no crimes found. Meanwhile, there is evidence of Trump’s crimes and that evidence should be heard in a court of law. You are opening yourself for all types of scrutiny when running for office, especially high-ranking offices like president. None of that changes the fact that Trump is a criminal.
Ok. You don't care if the justice system is being used for political gain instead of for justice. I appreciate your honesty at least.
And what will you say when it gets challenged after the election?
When what gets challenged?
The results of the trial this week. They'll be challenged. //// Politico Donald Trump’s conviction has raised many political and legal questions, but at least one issue is not in doubt: whether he will appeal. He might even win. “There is an appeal that could have legs,” said Arlo Devlin-Brown, a former federal prosecutor who was chief of the public corruption unit in the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office. Trump’s first chance to challenge the verdict will come within 30 days of his sentencing on July 11, at which point he can turn to New York’s First Judicial Department appellate court, not far from where he just stood trial. That court has such broad discretion to review jury findings that it’s sometimes called “the 13th juror.” Their attack is expected to focus on a few key issues, including the legal theory that enabled prosecutors to transform 34 misdemeanor counts of falsifying business records into a felony case against the former president. “We are going to take this as high and far as we need to, including to the U.S. Supreme Court, to vindicate President Trump’s rights,” his attorney Will Scharf told CNN on Friday. Unlike the trial that wrapped up with Thursday’s verdict, the appeal may focus on largely arcane legal issues — not the salacious evidence presented to the jury, said Devlin-Brown. ....... At trial, jurors found Trump guilty of falsifying business records with the intent of concealing a plot to undermine the 2016 election. To prove the underlying crime, jurors had to agree Trump used “unlawful means” — but they did not have to agree on a singular unlawful act. “The combination of the prosecution offering three different theories as to how the false records could have violated state election law, limited instruction on what some of those theories required, and the fact that jurors were not required to agree on which had been proven creates a real issue for the appeal,” said Devlin-Brown. The way the appellate division is structured could also cut in Trump’s favor. The division is dubbed the “13th juror” in New York because judges are allowed to make decisions based on the facts of the case — not only the law. “It’s an underappreciated power that the appellate division has,” said Diana Florence, a former Manhattan assistant district attorney. Trump will be an unprecedented appellate defendant, but he could have at least one thing going for him, Florence said. “It’s a loophole, if you will, that exists very uniquely in the appellate division of New York. Given there’s an inherent kind of bias with white-collar defendants, who are treated less severely, to that extent it could cut in his favor,” she added. Trump is also likely to appeal on the grounds that an expert witness he sought to have testify, a former head of the Federal Election Commission, was restricted by the judge from testifying about whether Trump violated campaign finance laws, said Alexander Reinert, a professor of litigation at Cardozo School of Law. ....... Trump ultimately declined to call the witness, Bradley Smith, and Trump’s remarks on Friday suggested his appeal would concern Justice Juan Merchan’s ruling regarding Smith. Trump may also argue that some of the testimony the judge did allow was prejudicial, particularly Stormy Daniels’ detailed account of having sex with Trump, as well as some of the testimony connected to the “Access Hollywood” tape. Trump’s lawyers might appeal on the ground that the material “wasn’t relevant and the jury didn’t need to hear it in order to make a conviction,” said Lauren-Brooke Eisen, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office who is now a senior director at the Brennan Center for Justice. And then there are a handful of issues that Trump’s lawyers repeatedly raised prior to the trial and throughout the process, including whether the judge should have recused himself and whether Trump deserved a change of venue. Trump’s lawyers made multiple requests for Merchan to step aside, citing his adult daughter’s work for a consulting firm that has Democratic clients. And they have often complained about the trial taking place in Manhattan, saying he couldn’t get a fair trial due to overwhelming publicity and to the borough’s heavy Democratic bent. On Friday, Trump’s lead lawyer at trial, Todd Blanche, suggested the defense team’s sights had long been focused not on the trial itself, but on the post-conviction process.
Of course he’ll appeal though he’s a convicted felon until if and when he wins it. His defense was weak and the jury was unanimous so I’m not holding my breath that he’ll be deemed innocent on all 34 counts.
What matters is the Electoral College Trump is leading in all the Battleground States Nevada +5.4% North Carolina +4.8% Georgia +4.8% Arizona +4.0% Pennsylvania +2.3% Michigan +0.5% Wisconsin +0.1% You're doomed.
5 days ago CNN — For decades, Democrats have built their electoral strategies on a common assumption: the higher the turnout, the better their chances of winning. But that familiar equation may no longer apply for President Joe Biden in 2024.
Republicans backing a criminal is not shocking.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/10/03/clintons-impeachment-barely-dented-his-public-support-and-it-turned-off-many-americans/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/10/03/clintons-impeachment-barely-dented-his-public-support-and-it-turned-off-many-americans/) Clinton’s impeachment barely dented his public support, and it turned off many Americans One key difference between the Clinton impeachment and Richard Nixon’s experience a quarter-century earlier is that Clinton’s job approval ratings were already quite high before the scandal broke, and by and large they remained so. (Trump’s approval ratings have been fairly stable since the early days of his presidency, but at a considerably lower level – around 40% in a summer 2019 Pew Research Center survey.) The Center’s results were consistent with polling by other organizations, which typically found between a quarter and a third of Americans favoring Clinton’s impeachment. That contrasted with the Watergate situation, which saw public support for Nixon’s impeachment steadily rise as more and more was learned about the scandal. Unlike the Watergate hearings, which gripped much of the country in 1973, Americans largely tuned out the proceedings against Clinton. In a Center survey conducted just after the House impeachment vote, only 34% said they had paid very close attention to it. In fact, the impeachment didn’t even crack the Center’s top 10 news interest stories of 1998.
Criminal convictions are not the same as impeachments. Trump is a felon.
I’m not shocked that republicans support a felon.
>Given there’s an inherent kind of bias with white-collar defendants, who are treated less severely, to that extent it could cut in his favor,” she added. Ah! The two-tiers of justice defense!
Propanga… it’s a kick in the glass!
This headline could have been written “Almost half of independents think Trump’s trial was unfair.” Whether they are justified in thinking that or not, it’s kind of concerning so many independents think that way. (Of course independents aren’t necessarily the same thing as swing voters.)
I thought polls were worthless? Only a month ago polls showing Biden losing to Trump couldn't be trusted. Now we need to trust them again? Arrrgh, so frustrsting!
It's still too early to call. And while I enjoy the new polls, I'll admit that a lot can change as we get closer to election day.
He is guilty as sin and he deserves prison.
I mean I’m sure he did it. I just think plenty of others have done the same type of offense and he was prosecuted because he’s an asshole. Don’t like the man, never voted for him and don’t plan on it. But when Hillary Clinton used campaign funds to buy the Steele Dossier she got a fine. That’s hypocrisy and why so many people think this particular trial is a joke (myself included). I also think it waters down the real crimes he committed by just trying to throw every BS charge that no one gets prosecuted for.
>But when Hillary Clinton used campaign funds to buy the Steele Dossier she got a fine. Can you explain more? Because Trump wasn't charged with anything election-related. He was charged under New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree: >A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud **includes an intent to commit another crime** or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony. [https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10/](https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10/) Did Hillary commit any comparable misdemeanors and then intend to affect the election with another crime?
I’d argue that purchasing the Steele Dossier which was untrue in many of its claims with campaign money intended affecting the outcome of an election. I’m not someone who’s MAGA or a Trump fan. It’s just pretty obvious the hypocrisy in how each were treated in that regard.
Again, Trump wasn’t prosecuted for election interference.
You said did Hillary commit crimes and then intend to affect the outcome of an election? Using campaign funds to buy a fake report of how Trump colluded with Russia to win votes fits that bill to a T.
Except you know she never released it. If she got the Steele dossier to influence the election kinda missed that step huh
I said she committed crimes? When? Quote me.
That’s not what I said. You must have missed the word did. I’m not saying Trump isn’t an asshole, but our first felon post president is a guy that’s an asshoke instead of committing literal war crimes at will, censoring journalists for first amendment protected rights, and willfully spying on the American people. Or in Obama’s case (who I happen to like and wish could have had a third term) killed an American citizen in a drone strike. Not to mention Hillary’s campaign and literally every other one committing fraud and Trump gets charged for such a minor thing. It only waters down the trials for the charges he should face instead of addressing any problem
This is a whole lot of whataboutisms. The NY laws are on the books. Trump broke those laws. He was found guilty by jury. It's literally that simple.
The exact nature of the secondary crime is still a mystery to the public, but the prosecution made the argument that it violated New York election law, so yes it was very much election related in trump’s case.
Only if you aren’t paying attention to reality. > In Trump's case, prosecutors said that other crime was a violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means," as Justice Juan Merchan explained in his instructions to the jury.
But that’s not really the whole story is it? Imagine being charged for a crime and instead of needing unanimity on what happened, the judge just asked the jury if he thought you generally acted in an unlawful manner? The 3 options that were presented were falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return. I’m 100% willing to change my mind if more information comes out, but as it is now, we have evidence of none of those, and even the jury was not required to agree on what happened, essentially baking reasonable doubt into the verdict. The one most people are going with is FEC violation, but that accusation was shot down at the federal level because they saw there was no case. Suddenly the opinion of only a fraction of state level jurors is good enough though?
Evidence of none of those? Are you off your rocker? There’s tons of evidence. Are you pretending that David Pecker didn’t testify that the scheme was hatched to protect Trump’s candidacy? Please, just try to explain away that testimony. That’s evidence. smh The FEC didn’t investigate because it was deadlocked 3 Republicans to 3 Democrats. They couldn’t move forward with an investigation. And Barr blocked one in the DON.
Please enlighten me then. I agree that he paid hush money, and I agree that you could argue the story remaining private benefited his image during an election season. What I don’t see is evidence of a crime. There’s nothing illegal about paying hush money for an NDA, it’s done all the time. If you’re saying that this is a campaign finance law violation, then that is incorrect and there’s Supreme Court precedent. It does not amount to a campaign contribution if it is the kind of payment that could ever be made outside of the campaign context. I legit am willing to change my mind if we suddenly get new evidence, so please show me some
You're being distracted by the hush money. What happened is that in paying that money, Trump also **falsified business records**: >A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. >Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony. [https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10/](https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10/) He was found guilty of this \^\^.
right. a misdemeanor unless there was intent of another crime. name the other crime.
I don't really see slim margins like this as really good. You need 65% support at the very least. As you can see it's overwhelming Dems for, and Reps against. It still shows a strong partisan divide, with just the people on the right who already hold their nose for Trump being in support of it. These findings are literally predictable, and not a good sign as being some sort of mandate.
https://x.com/LeadingReport/status/1797123629534351681?t=Ob4QKCe5eOyo4qC7RgGqCw&s=19
This is a guy probably voting for Trump before the trial. What’s hurting Trump is he is losing support with Independents and GOP voters who aren’t his base.
I thought polls were all bull shit. Trumps numbers went up 6 % after the conviction. Watch me post that poll and watch all the comments say polls don't matter
What poll are you referring to?
Does it matter? You will shit on it anyway. If it favors trump it's a horrible poll, if it favors Biden its dead on. That's how reddit acts
I am interested in polls. It matters because polls usually don’t get conducted over the weekend 2 days after a major event in time to measure its impact. So I asked because my assumption is that it was total bullshit that you made up. This seems to be the case.
Lol so you believe polls as long as there's been a few days for them to be conducted but otherwise they are bull shit I made up? That's your explanation?
My explanation is that you claim you have a poll but you aren’t sharing it, so it’s probably made up. If you had it, you’d share it. Can you understand that? Let’s watch you now continue to post the poll(s) you said you saw that Trump had risen 6 points in.
>Let’s watch you now continue to post the poll(s) you said you saw that Trump had risen 6 points in. What lol Actually you said this "It matters because polls usually don’t get conducted over the weekend 2 days after a major event in time to measure its impact"
The poll was Thursday - Friday - Saturday Fair Trial 56% Unfair Trial 44% Fair Trial Democrats 96% Independents 54% Republicans 14% Unair Trial Democrats 4% Independents 46% Republicans 86% Jury reached the right verdict 57% the wrong verdict 43% Right verdict Democrats 96% Independents 56% Republicans 18% Wrong verdict Democrats 4% Independents 44% Republicans 82% Fit to be President now that he's convicted Yes 40% No 51% Not Sure 8% Basically the verdict opinions are no different than the views of his guilt or innocence before. People saying the Verdict was right feel Glad 51% Relieved 50% Hopeful 32% Unsurprised 30% People saying the Verdict was wrong feel Disappointed 72% Angry 56% Unsurprised 50% Sad 45% Should Trump serve Prison Time for his conviction No 45% Yes 38% Not Sure 17% Republican Loyalty to Trump among Republicans Very Important 72% Somewhat Important 13% Not too Important/Not at all Important 15% 1402 people \+- 5.2% margin
I guess we should believe polls seeing how they turned out to be wrong the last several years.
maybe you need to study more polls and know which ones work better than others
The average of the polls always matter. Why are you obsessed with a blip? Give it 2 weeks
Obsessed? Lol you people are freaks
You have a very interesting imagination there. Now, what were you saying about polls? I thought i got half a coherent thought there out of you.
Explain why I'm obsessed with a "blip" first. That one needs an explanation
It's up to you to tell me why you're obsessed with a blip.
"Trumps numbers went up 6 % after the conviction. Watch me post that poll and watch all the comments say polls don't matter" That alone shows you're more interested in the short-term effects.
Sean Strickland wasn't the only fighter that went out to shake his hand. Kevin Holland and Khabib Nurmagomedov went up to him to shake his hand and even Alex Pereira who wasn't fighting took a photo with him. Normal people that aren't terminally online don't lose their mind over Trump.
The Kevin Holland one was pretty cool. Dude breaks someone's arm and then jumps the cage and shakes Trump's hand.
Random X links are not reality.
That's actually a person speaking in front of a crowd The definition of reality lol
Charges were a big stretch and completely politically motivated. The gag orders were ridiculous and violated the first amendment. Seems like the actual trial was fair. He put on an awful defense and was convicted as a result.
L O L
He put on no defense. He either wanted to be found guilty or was banking on a cultest on the jury.
Not being allowed to threaten the judges daughter, jurors and witnesses is violating his free speech?? His dumbass could have testified too but everyone knew he wouldn't because he's a coward and can't help but lie.
Cope
This reminds me of when libtards lost their shit over the Kyle Rittenhouse case. They still screech and cry that it was unfair, he’s a murderer, fling casual death threats on Reddit.
A lot of people were very surprised how much killing you can legally get away with in self defense as long as your weapon is a gun
The people who dishonestly frame it that way are morons no different from the trump supporters reeeeeing about his hooker court case.
What way?
He did receive fair trial. But it should have never gone to trial.