The Trump Criminal Case MEGATHREAD.

[Some Schmo]

I just love that Trump's legal team has made no bones about the fact they intend to appeal this decision.

If they really believed this was political persecution, why would they rely on the appellate court? If it's all a sham, isn't it all a sham?

Liars will tell lies.

[Res Ipsa]

I just love that Trump's legal team has made no bones about the fact they intend to appeal this decision.

If they really believed this was political persecution, why would they rely on the appellate court? If it's all a sham, isn't it all a sham?

Liars will tell lies.

I think it depends on who is doing the persecuting. If the persecutor is the prosecutor and/or the judge, an appeal would be a potential remedy.

I think there are couple of legitimate issues for appeal:

1. Whether the indictment was insufficient because it did not allege the specific law that Trump intended to violate when he falsified business records.

2. Whether the judge was correct in his ruling that the jurors did not have to unanimously agree on the specific law Trump intended to violate.

There is an old NY case under a different statute that held that the answer to number 1 is "no." However, that doesn't mean it is Constitutional under the U.S. Constitution.

I haven't seen what any case law says about number 2.

[Some Schmo]

I just love that Trump's legal team has made no bones about the fact they intend to appeal this decision.

If they really believed this was political persecution, why would they rely on the appellate court? If it's all a sham, isn't it all a sham?

Liars will tell lies.

I think it depends on who is doing the persecuting. If the persecutor is the prosecutor and/or the judge, an appeal would be a potential remedy.

I think there are couple of legitimate issues for appeal:

1. Whether the indictment was insufficient because it did not allege the specific law that Trump intended to violate when he falsified business records.

2. Whether the judge was correct in his ruling that the jurors did not have to unanimously agree on the specific law Trump intended to violate.

There is an old NY case under a different statute that held that the answer to number 1 is "no." However, that doesn't mean it is Constitutional under the U.S. Constitution.

I haven't seen what any case law says about number 2.

I'm not arguing he doesn't have recourse under the law. I'm just pointing out that if one thinks this was all political theater, why would the appellate court be any different? We're talking about an alleged federal conspiracy here.

Obviously, I don't think any state court systems are politically controlled (although I'll admit some judges likely suck, driven by partisan motivations). But if one is so detached from reality as to suspect a conspiracy of the required size to pull off what they're suggesting, then obviously, there's nothing stopping one from thinking the appellate court is in on it too, which is exactly what Trump will tell his idiot base if the appeal fails.

And I'll admit, most of his base likely hasn't even thought about it this much (because to really think about it rationally is to realize how damned stupid the idea is). They've just learned the word "lawfare" and repeat it ad nauseam, imagining they're making a point.

[Gunnar]

GOP has come to stand for Gullible Or Paranoid (but likely both).

And one of the most outstanding examples of that I know of is our good, mutual friend Ajax! He is not ignorant of everything, though. His knowledge and expertise concerning optometry and eyecare that he has shared with us seems very well based on good science and sound medical practice.

[Some Schmo]

GOP has come to stand for Gullible Or Paranoid (but likely both).

And one of the most outstanding examples of that I know of is our good, mutual friend Ajax! He is not ignorant of everything, though. His knowledge and expertise concerning optometry and eyecare that he has shared with us seems very well based on good science and sound medical practice.

I don't know what to make of him and I don't care. I've tried to elicit honesty from him in the past and it's always a no go.

There are only a couple explanations for him, and neither are favorable:
- He actually believes what he says, and can't begin to process information accurately even if he were motivated to try (which he's not, given how often he actively ignores facts)
- He considers himself an important cog in the rightwing BS machine

I have no time for people of either nature.

[Gunnar]

I don't know what to make of him and I don't care. I've tried to elicit honesty from him in the past and it's always a no go.

There are only a couple explanations for him, and neither are favorable:
- He actually believes what he says, and can't begin to process information accurately even if he were motivated to try (which he's not, given how often he actively ignores facts)
- He considers himself an important cog in the rightwing BS machine

I have no time for people of either nature.

I completely understand that sentiment!

[Vēritās]

This kind of cognitive dissonance comes easy with Mormons who spend most of their lives perfecting it as an art.

[huckelberry]

Not necessarily. The two men were charged with very different offenses.

Understood.

Still... 34 counts, all guilty. What good is the justice system if it doesn't attempt to prevent him from doing it again?

I have a hard time imagining something which would prevent him from doing it again. He appears to be pretty head strong. Well a guillotine would probably stop it but would be excessive and bad politics.

I am troubled by the politics of this enough to incline to root for a suspended sentence or short public service. Compare this with watergate. I think now Nixon was a far better president than Trump even though I did not like Nixon, voted against him and was very happy when he left office. But burglary is seen by all as a crime while this Trump thing appears closer to a bureaucratic misstep worthy of fine or a handslap. To those of us on the left and antiwar Nixon burglary suggested fear of gulags and fascism , probably overwrought ideas. But even to many Republicans burglary was too far.

I imagine that of the legal charges this was the easiest to pursue and prove but in terms of threat the least significant.

[Some Schmo]

Understood.

Still... 34 counts, all guilty. What good is the justice system if it doesn't attempt to prevent him from doing it again?

I have a hard time imagining something which would prevent him from doing it again. He appears to be pretty head strong.

True, but that would be a reason to go harder on him, not easier.

Plus, any time a sentence is handed out, it's a message to all other would-be lawbreakers.

Well a guillotine would probably stop it but would be excessive and bad politics.

Now hold on there... you make a good point about the guillotine. I don't think we should reject the idea so hastily out of politics.

[Bond]

I suspect probation and a hefty fine. The real hammer if it ever comes will be on the documents. Any regular 28 year old military analysis with such documents would be in the Pentagon sauna being asked about their grandma's gap year trip to Moscow in 1977. They wouldn't have gone back and forth with the Archives for 18 months either.