Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Celista]

Fox news working overtime to spin this.

So, my boss at work is claiming there's no actual proof that Trump did anything criminal, and the only thing they have is "the testimony of a porn star and a lawyer disbarred for lying", and that "all independent legal experts see this as a sham and he should've gotten not-guilty".

Elsewhere, I've heard there's a considerable amount of evidence and that loads of legal experts are saying he was definitely guilty based on what they saw.

So which is it? Where do I find proof that I can point to and say, "No, you're wrong."

I would point to the panel of jurors that Trump and Trump's team picked out and simply say that the jurors disagreed. Or you can remain silent or say something along the lines of not feeling as though politics should be discussed in the workplace.

I would also consider getting a new job because your boss sounds like he is challenged in the critical thinking department. Might sound like an extreme take but the job market is good right now and hopefully that is true for your area specifically. I can't imagine your prospects at a company with a boss like that. What is your company culture like?

Might also be a defense mechanism on his part. See if he changes his mind later. Sometimes it happens.

- - - Updated - - -

How will the conviction affect the election?

I think it depends (at least in part) as to whether or not he gets prison time. Easier for people to downplay the crime if he simply has to pay a fine.

[Zaydin]

Gotta love conservatives wailing and gnashing their teeth over the verdict when they were the ones after t hings like the Zimmerman, Rittenhouse and countless killer cop not guilty verdicts would smugly say "You have to respect the verdict".

Apparently the same rules don't apply to them though, not that that's a shock: If conservatives didn't have double standards they wouldn't have any standards at all.

[Belize]

... migrants speaking 'unknown languages we've never heard of'. This fucking guy.

Well shit, that's cool from a linguistics point of view

[Celista]

Gotta love conservatives wailing and gnashing their teeth over the verdict when they were the ones after t hings like the Zimmerman, Rittenhouse and countless killer cop not guilty verdicts would smugly say "You have to respect the verdict".

Apparently the same rules don't apply to them though, not that that's a shock: If conservatives didn't have double standards they wouldn't have any standards at all.

"Lock her up! Lock her up!" definitely rules for thee and not for me vibes here. Karma is a bitch.

[Zaydin]

"Lock her up! Lock her up!" definitely rules for thee and not for me vibes here. Karma is a bitch.

You also have right wing cranks demanding Republican AGs/prosecutors start arresting Democrats 'because'.

[Edge-]

You also havec right wing cranks demanding Republican AGs/prosecutors start arresting Democrats 'because'.

Literal toddler mentality.

[Odinfrost]

definitely rules for thee and not for me vibes here.

It's my favorite wizard spell. It makes anything I say infallible

[Zaydin]

Literal toddler mentality.

They worship a 77 year old toddler so it makes sense.

[Endus]

You also havec right wing cranks demanding Republican AGs/prosecutors start arresting Democrats 'because'.

They're just so deeply, deeply silly and non-serious. Point at these wankheads and mock them. Laugh at their antics. They are clowns, and their whinging exists for our amusement.

They will, of course, become irate and try to convince you that they're a threat. This is the second beat of the joke that they are, and you should mock them even harder and invite others to come and point and laugh at the clowns with you.

Red hats or red noses, it doesn't matter. They're wearing a ridiculous costume and dancing form the amusement of others, even if that amusement is the rhetorical equivalent of slapping themselves in the face with a cream pie over and over. It's not high art, but neither is the cream pie to the face. If you can't laugh at the human equivalent of a loud and raucous fart, is there any humor left in you at all?

[Edge-]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/31/tech/...ors/index.html

On online forums that have previously been linked to mass shootings, people are threatening violence and attempting to publicly identify the 12 New York jurors who on Thursday decided to convict former President Donald Trump.

The calls for retribution began immediately after the verdict was announced.

“Hope these jurors face some street justice,” one anonymous user on a pro-Trump forum wrote. Another suggestively asked, “Wouldn’t [it] be interesting if just one person from Trump’s legal team anonymously leaked the names of the jurors?”

Anonymity is supposed to add a layer of protection for jurors doing their civic duty. Once reserved only for cases involving violent criminal enterprises, the practice is becoming more common. The judge in the Trump New York trial issued an order in March agreeing with prosecutors that most information about the jurors would be sealed. Trump’s lawyers did not disagree, according to the order.

Overnight, however, anonymous internet users on sites that are known havens of hate and harassment began sharing names, home addresses and other personal information belonging to people they say might have been members of the jury, a practice known as doxxing.

Right wing domestic terrorists are desperately trying to doxx the jurors in Donald's case and are just apparently sharing around the information of seemingly random people they think are jurors.

[Breccia]

I heard plenty. This is what she said:

It beats what Ivanka has said:

I love you dad

"Where's the rest of it?"

There is no rest of it.

The former first daughter shared a photo of a young Donald Trump holding her as a kid on his lap to Instagram Stories with the caption “I love you dad” and a heart emoji.

Sources say Ivanka is fully supportive of her dad and loves him very much despite his conviction.

That's the NYPost so I believe them.

[Makabreska]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/31/tech/...ors/index.html



Right wing domestic terrorists are desperately trying to doxx the jurors in Donald's case and are just apparently sharing around the information of seemingly random people they think are jurors.

Daily reminder that these radicals and their threats are no joke.

[The Stormbringer]

Daily reminder that these radicals and their threats are no joke.

And yet they're supposedly not yet "a serious enough threat" to have legal action taken. Amazing. No wonder we have so many shootings in the USA.

[Ripster42]

Sure, McConnell, all Trump has to do is bring forth new evidence, show how the jury was biased, or bribe the judge enough and since he doesn't have enough money or any of the other two I'm sure he'll lose that as well. At least we get to hear the punishment before he can appeal, hopefully there's some amount of anything that resembles jail.

So how does this work exactly, I thought appeals courts weren't fact based, but more about trial procedure. So new evidence can't be admitted unless there was a flaw in trial procedure where evidence that was already known wasn't allowed in by the judge, when it should have been allowed to be submitted to the jury.

IANAL, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Poopymonster]

So how does this work exactly, I thought appeals courts weren't fact based, but more about trial procedure. So new evidence can't be admitted unless there was a flaw in trial procedure where evidence that was already known wasn't allowed in by the judge, when it should have been allowed to be submitted to the jury.

IANAL, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I can hear MMOChamp's second favorite lawyer recording as we speak.
If he can stop laughing.

[Ripster42]

I can hear MMOChamp's second favorite lawyer recording as we speak.
If he can stop laughing.

It's one of my favorite acronyms.

[cubby]

So how does this work exactly, I thought appeals courts weren't fact based, but more about trial procedure. So new evidence can't be admitted unless there was a flaw in trial procedure where evidence that was already known wasn't allowed in by the judge, when it should have been allowed to be submitted to the jury.

IANAL, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct. Appeals courts are all about reviewing the trial, and rarely (if ever) about reviewing new facts (unless the issue is new facts, in which case they would remand back to trial court for a new trial).

Any and all appeals from Trump's 34 felony convictions (love saying that) can only be based on how the trial was conducted, procedure, and any and all objections that were brought forth by the defense.

- - - Updated - - -

I can hear MMOChamp's second favorite lawyer recording as we speak.
If he can stop laughing.

It's been mostly grins and thoughts of Trump sequestered away in county lockup.

[Xyonai]

You also have right wing cranks demanding Republican AGs/prosecutors start arresting Democrats 'because'.

Nick Fuentes - notable Neo Nazi and proponent of thirty year olds being allowed to fuck teenagers - put out a now deleted Tweet calling on his followers to just start indiscriminately murdering democrats.

These people are reaching new levels of unhinged I've never seen before. If Trump actually goes to jail I'm expecting another riot.

- - - Updated - - -

Any and all appeals from Trump's 34 felony convictions (love saying that) can only be based on how the trial was conducted, procedure, and any and all objections that were brought forth by the defense.

And, objectively speaking, Trump's trial was handled with kid gloves and the man was given way too much wiggle room to be a nuisance outside of court. Like the only way the judge could've been more lenient on him is if her name was Cannon, and he still found himself guilty on all charges.

If anything, a possible appeal should see him with a harsher sentence for his own shitty conduct. (I know that's not how it works, I'm being facetious to make a point/joke).

[Shadowferal]

Various newspaper headlines
A couple favorites;

[Ripster42]

You are correct. Appeals courts are all about reviewing the trial, and rarely (if ever) about reviewing new facts (unless the issue is new facts, in which case they would remand back to trial court for a new trial).

So I was looking up BS to even be able to figure out how to accurately ask the question I was going to ask and I think I figured it out on my own:

It doesn't seem to me like there's going to be any new evidence that comes up here that would exonerate trump.

Essentially it has to be new evidence that they couldn't have gotten earlier doing due diligence, and as this was mostly a records case, almost all evidence is going to fail that test.

It's also going to fail test 2 & 3 because that's the only kind of evidence in this trial that couldn't have been gotten through doing their due diligence.