Topic: Publicly held Trump trials - ongoing - page 20. (Read 4824 times)

There are jury trials and there are bench (judge) trials. Varies by jurisdiction but if both options are available (which is not always, e.g. for some minor misdemeanor crimes, or divorce cases, etc you may not even have the jury option) then usually the defendant can choose. I guess in this case Trump or his lawyers thought it would be easier to deal with a judge and chose a bench trial.

This case is a civil case, which is different from a criminal case. (he has 4 criminal cases going on, and one other civil case involving once again defaming the woman that he sexually assaulted the day after being held liable for sexually assaulting and defaming her for $5 million.)

Civil case = only financially related penalties - fines, sanctions, license suspension/revoked, and the bar is lower when it comes requirements to convict.  Instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt" it's closer to "much more likely than not."

Criminal case = you're assumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and obviously prison time is on the table if convicted.


Also, there will still be a trial.  I think it might start next week.  The jury just doesn't have to consider whether or not Trump is a fraud since that's already been proven.  They just have to decide what the punishment will be.  

In the lastest news, I have learnt Trump and his organization have been found guilty of fraud by willingly lying on the value of their real state assets, so they could both ask for loans and also pay less taxes...

The evidence seemed to be overwhelming enough for the judge to take the choice and not even required a full trial for it (I did not know that was possible in America, I thought you always needed to be judged in front of a jury if you did not take a plea deal).

As usual, I do not expect any of this to negatively affect Trump's poll numbers, but undoubtedly has stroked him bad, looking at his reaction on Truth social.

Obviously   , I mean... not even Nixon or Reagan blaming Oliver North. All of them gifts of the Republicans to the world, but not half of Trumps level.

Now, an update, some of the defendants including Trump's Attorney of choice will exercise their right to an speedy trial. They feel it is better to have their case quickly as opposed to Trump and others that would rather have it slow and painful.

This probably gives and advantage to the ones going after as part of the evidence will be known.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/25/trump-attorney-fake-electors-subpoena-00053765

The background for this is that an Attorney is a public officer and cannot engage in political support or campaign activities publicly - the trial will likely show he did.


Edited: At NY, on the Tax fraud case against Trump, a judge has ruled that Trump committed several frauds, misrepresenting the value of assets by more than 5 even 10 fold to get credits against them. He is to loose his "business licence" and pay a considerable fine.

Now, is anyone not familiar with Trump "inflationism" of all and everything?

Yes.  100%.

Threatening others or instigating your wolfpack to threaten or assault people who bother you is not free speech. Let's put a very clear example: You are trialling a mafia boss, this guy's "free speech" may mean that someone in the street could be attacked by an angry mob. Is it ok for this person to try to influence the trial?

Well, there are precedents of Trump's speech putting people at risk (e.g. "Ruby" who he says "cheated" in the ballots and has received death threats all over) and also his mob killing people in the Capitol, so no, you cannot try to influence your trial by trying to intimidate or mislead you violent followers.

The prosecution is using all kinds of double-standards to prosecute Trump. Here is another one... using free speech in the trial, to try to shut up Trump's usage of free speech.


BREAKING: Special Counsel Jack Smith Attempts to Gag Trump

---

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/09/breaking-special-counsel-jack-smith-tries-gag-trump/
Jack Smith claimed in his order released Friday that Trump is "issuing inflammatory public statements targeted at individuals or institutions that present an obstacle or challenge to him."

Federal prosecutors are furious that Trump is using his First Amendment right to defend himself against rabid attacks from Biden's DOJ.

The special counsel's prosecutors accused Trump of attempting to "prejudice the jury pool through disparaging and inflammatory attacks on the citizens of this District, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses."

Jack Smith's list includes numerous names and even denies President Trump the ability to mention the crooked DOJ and FBI.

Apparently, only Jack Smith is allowed to "prejudice the jury pool" by selectively leaking information to the Washington Post, CNN, New York Times and other far-left outlets.

NBC News reported:

Citing threats against individuals former President Donald Trump has targeted, Special Counsel Jack Smith is asking a federal judge for a narrowly tailored gag order that restricts the 2024 presidential candidate from making certain extrajudicial statements about the election interference case brought against him.

----------

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸
@julie_kelly2
·
Follow
Despite Jack Smith's claims he wants a "narrow" gag order, this would prevent Trump from posting/saying anything about Smith, Chutkan, DC jury pool, the FBI, the DOJ in general, Bill Barr, Mike Pence, and a host of other figures/agencies.
...

---

I think no one will try to purse the 14th amendment before Trump is proven beyond any reasonable doubt and in court, that he indeed meant to threat the Federal Government of the United States by the actions prior and during the capitol attack. 

If some states tried to keep him out the ballot citing the 14th amendment, then there could be some political unrest because that choice, it is less likely there will be the much commotion if he gets convicted first. Though, finding him guilty would require prosecutors to convince a jury that he was aware of the implications of his actions when comes to American Democracy.

In an imaginary case where Trump is found not guilty of being a traitor or insurgent, then the 14th amendment should be crossed out.

The only explicit rule is that he has to be over 35, but there is an amendment (14th) that bans traitors and insurgents. That could easily apply, as he promoted an assault on the Capitol.

Todays video is still on the preliminaries or the matters, lawyers trying to get their clients out of the fire that may consume Trump and anyone who helped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7Tjx_jcmeQ

nope

could be quite the show lmao

He is very likely to be found guilty, in my opinion.
Specially he continues to admit his crimes whenever he feels like talking in public about being indicted.

Also, he even mentioned he would likely take the witness stand and declare under oath, which of course his lawyers wont allow to happen, became he is likely to commit perjury.

Let us just admit that Trump is a better businessman and he is a president, The United States deserved to have a person better than both Trump and Biden in the White House.

He didn't lose, yet.     

History in the making, in front of our eyes, as I have said before.
You know what it is interesting ? he has a pretty much high chance of creating another unprecedented situation and becoming the first president ever in the United States (in case he wins) who will likely govern the nation from the inside of a cell.

He can pardon himself out sticky situations but he cannot when comes to state charges.  Hence his desire to move as many charges as possible to federal courts.

Is there even a rule or law which rules what to do if the President of the United States is behind bars at the moment of election?

Does this mean that Trump is worse than any of the other politicians... or does it mean that Trump is being singled out for special reasons?

People in this forum often 'charge' each other with what could be considered crimes if indictments flew. People all over the place do the same.

Antifa and BLM riot in criminal ways because they don't really believe they are acting criminally. Rather, they believe that the system and average people have acted criminally against them, and all they are doing is bringing about justice.

The point is that the people who are indicting Trump are doing similar or worse crimes than what they are indicting Trump for. So, what does it mean? It means that there is an agenda against Trump, and one that is criminal in its whole operation. If it weren't criminal, they would have indicted themselves and Biden for all the worse-than-Trump things that they and Biden are doing.

No sitting, future or former president has ever been charged with a single crime in the history of the country except for Donald Trump, who has been charged with 91 felonies across four State and Federal jurisdictions.  

History does not say that people of such a level have been convicted and punished in almost 300 years of America. We know that many steps have been taken before and some have gone to the last stage of the trial Cases are dropped or closed for cause, history says so, so we don't expect to see that in Trump's case, because history happens in phases, and this will happen this time.In American politics, some people from the opposition party have been harassed before without any reason. These are a part of the election and a strategy to get publicity May is for the party or from the opposition party I think Trump will get the party's nomination regardless of the conviction or the conspiracy.After all this if Trump wins the election and if he can't be defeated then he will get a lot from the party and if he fails here then he has to make a big sacrifice for the party.Accused are currently under protection in various ways, but all will be convicted if proven and one thing is that if proven there is no appeal.I don't think it will end up being a public trial either way
I think in 2016 it's a ploy to get a nomination that America has become a culture of politics, maybe this time it's nothing more than a ploy to get a nomination in the same way, and history doesn't say that. There has been no trial in America, so it assumes that it is nothing more than a strategy, so I think.Whatever the law, even if the case is ultimately convicted, the criminal justice system will be seen as too logos and too few trials will be done, which will appear to be artificially created.

In my opinion, in order for that to happen Trump would need to lose much of his control mover those relatively moderate Republicans voters in the USA.
The polls and the mid term elections showed that there is a chance Trump could be defeated in the next presidential election and he will certainly be his last chance to continue to be politically relevant. If he does not, I can also guarantee that he will be indeed sacrificed by the party, for the sake of power.

Though, I would not completely trust polls, the last polls suggested that the red wave was going to happen and did not.

The Republicans might, just might, have second thoughts as well as the donors, if Trump gets effectively convicted. We would be considering proposing a convicted felon for the presidency of the US and some of the voters - the polls show - even some Trumpists do not really feel comfortable with that.

There may be a moment in which the Republicans may have to stab Trump at the exit of the Capitol (just like Brutus to Cesar) to stand a chance of re-election.

Edited to add: The attempt to "sever" the cases of the probably less involved members of the conspiracy has failed. All 19 defendants are going to be trialled together which means that all evidence will be evidence against all of them, thus making some of them to turn against Trump to avoid serving long times for very little participation.

GOP has not been the same in years, anyways.
Do you remember when Trump (back in the 2016) started to get traction to get the nomination? People within the party started to warn that Trump was going to be the end, a negative inflection point for the Republican party.

Years passed and the very same people who warned about Trump is now openly supporting him and saying he is the one who can save the country. I ignore whether they actually believe so, though, it shows how low a politician can go for the sake of keeping their position of power.

Whether Trump gets convicted or not, he will get the Republican nomination, for it not to happen, it would take him to be disqualified.

We're really in a big moment for American politics. I'm more curious about what this might mean for the Republican Party. If Trump gets convicted, it could hurt their image and make winning elections tough. There might even be a rift, with some Republicans backing away from him while others stay loyal.

But even if Trump gets off the hook, there could still be problems for the party. All this attention might not sit well with voters, and it could overshadow other important topics they want to address. It's a real tight spot.