I just automatically downvote shit like this.
"...legal analyst predicts."
I don't disagree, but come on. It's a filler article.
this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
156 points (83.3% liked)
politics
24741 readers
3591 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"Hey ~~mindless zombie~~ valued customer. We noticed you thought about putting your phone down. Here's an article to stroke your ego. ~~Resistance is futile~~ Thanks!"
Article title: Judge SLAMS Donald, fascism is on the ropes, prison looming.
Article body: today a Judge meekly begged Donald to stop asking his insurrectionists to murder the court clerks. A legal expert claims that maybe if Donald continues doing so he could be fined potentially $1,000 and possibly asked again to stop. Also next time might be a more stern tone of voice.
There is always a possibility of a hung jury due to a die hard Trump fanatic on the jury. But barring that, he will be found guilty. This is a documents case where there is no room for interpretation. It doesn't matter that Cohen is a liar. It doesn't matter that the defense sabotaged itself. Guilt was a foregone conclusion - to the extent it can be given a presumption of innocence.
It's like putting a color on trial for being red. You can bring in all the experts to call it pink or magenta, or question whether eyes are even real, but at the end of the day there's a legal definition and either the color matches or it doesn't.
That’s not entirely correct. Part of the prosecution’s case is tying Cohen’s compensation as Trump’s personal attorney to compensating him for laying out the money for the hush money payments. Cohen claims that he agreed to worked as the President’s personal attorney for free, and payments received during that period were in fact compensation for his payments to Daniels. That piece of the case is directly dependent on Cohen’s credibility as a witness, which is why the defense focused so heavily on discrediting him.
There is very clear documentary evidence of what happened, no matter how big a liar Cohen is. I mean I certainly simplified it, but not by much. Correction and clarification always welcome, of course, so thank you for adding this.
I appreciate your pleasantry, but your assertion of clear evidence is still incorrect, and Cohen’s credibility is essential to the prosecution’s case. The documentation for Cohen’s repayment does not exist. The prosecution is arguing that the records of Cohen’s payment for his role as the President’s personal attorney were falsified, stating that Cohen was working for free and those payments were compensation for him laying out the money for Daniels’s payment.
The rest is thoroughly documented, as you said, but that one part is substantiated by testimony. Thankfully, he was very clear, composed, and humble in his testimony. He spoke vulnerably about his desires to do anything that would please Trump. He was very different than the venomous and vengeful guy the defense tried to portray.
load more comments
(2 replies)
This just made me think of a world where everyone has some sort of colorblindness and can't see a color, except this one person who can who used it, but the color is outlawed, so there's a trial of all color blind people and are being told it's this color, but aside from a computer giving a hex code for it, they can't see it and have to rely on this computer output over their own eyes.
Starring Will Smith, in theaters this Summer.
There is also a little subjectivity in whether the reason for falsifying the business documents was to cover up a crime (election interference). My understanding is that that's what raises the charges to a felony.
With that said, I don't believe the defense really tried to pass it off as general PR'ing or anything like that
Even if they convict its doubtful he will see the inside of a cell.
It would be pretty insane if Cohen does time, and the person ordering him to do the crime does not. Of course, par for the course in the US justice system, but nevertheless crazy.
Yeah my understanding is that this crime pretty universally leads to a fine and limitation of business activities, not prison time.
if he were given imprisonment as a sentence, it would be, at most, a few months, and he'd most likely be able to serve it under house arrest (e.g., in Trump Tower).
probably...
With no access to cell phones or the Internet please
pfft, that jerk will set up his own tv studio in his penhous and broadcast non-stop.
ugh....
A podcast like Giuliani.. it would be a shit show of epic proportions.
If Trump had allowed his lawyers to mount the best defense they could, he'd probably have a decent chance at complete acquittal or a hung jury.
Instead he forced them to perform a "defense" aimed at his base and maybe some people with "soft" dislike of him and most importantly aimed at hurting his "enemies" and puffing up his ego.
I did hear a persuasive argument that he might be acquitted on the charges related to checks he didn't personally sign (his sons signed instead) but get convicted on the checks he did sign. From what was reported that means it's possible the first 10 verdicts will be "not guilty" and the last 20+ will be "guilty."
I actually sort of hope that's what happens because 1) it will prove the jury wasn't out to get him and 2) he'll be feeling really good for those first verdicts then get gut punched for the last ones.
Waiting to hear if this ACTUALLY makes him ineligible to run again then.
You know what's crazy? We don't allow convicted felons to vote, but with trump we are told there's no law preventing him holding the office. Bananas.
I mean, I think you may not ylkow this, but it's important for people with felonies to both be able to vote and run for office.
I'm not arguing you should vote for them, but if this weren't the case, all a administration would need to tldo is convict their political opponents of felonies to effectively capture the state. For example, Bidens administration could have been far more aggressive in going after Trump specifically to prevent him from running. Maybe we think that's a good thing. But reverse the roles. Maybe Trump goes after DNC hopefuls for felonies in the run up to 2020. The knife cuts both ways.
We shouldn't view what is legal or illegal based on a given administrative and judicial configuration as monolithic. Our system needs to be able to mechanistically check itself against corruption. In many ways that's currently failing, but you can see how it's at least built into the basic structure of the system.
being a convicted felon would make him eminently more qualified to be a republican candidate for office.
Even if he is convicted and imprisoned, he can still run. It’s crazy.
All Congress needs to do is vote and fail to reach a supermajority vote to remove the cloud on his candidacy, and he'd be completely barred from office. We've all seen him engage in insurrection. They could vote to requalify him too, but the numbers aren't there.
That's how it would work if republicans weren't a mob of Russian puppets.
It does not.
Who decides how much, if at all, prison sentence Trump will get? Is there a minimum sentence? Since the judge sounded like he didn't want to put Trump in jail.
The judge decides. There is no minimum. Trump is a first time offender. If he was a random guy off the street (let's stipulate white for, you know, reasons) it would be very likely he'd get a sentence that doesn't include prison. Given his high profile, let's be honest there is no chance he'll do time over this.
But he will be a felon, likely on probation, so there are consequences associated with that. I believe the classified documents case is actually a much bigger threat to him (unless Cannon succeeds in finding a way to let him escape it).
The judge is no fan of Trump, but yes, he didn't want to put Trump in jail during the trial for contempt. There was a good reason, because that may be misused by Trump's team on appeal to suggest the judge biased the jury against Trump or that the judge was himself biased. I agree with prioritizing tactics to avoid any delay or unforced errors that Trump's team will certainly try to exploit.
After a guilty verdict, I assume the judge will decide the sentencing, and I don't see a reason to hold back. Of course, we've all been disappointed before.
There's a 0% chance Trump sees the inside of a cell due to this trial.
The judge. The jury decides if the defendant is guilty or not and then the judge comes up with the sentence.
Does this one get jail time? Would a black person get jail time?
Well, ya see, this is a white collar crime. They call it that for a reason
Surely this time...
applying common sense
We're fucking doomed... 😩
And it'll do JACK SHIT. Don't be shocked when he worms out of it like the cockroach he is
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Legal analyst and attorney Glenn Kirschner predicted on Friday that the jury "will convict Donald Trump" in his criminal hush money trial.
Kirschner said in a YouTube video on Wednesday that there's a "mountain" of corroborating evidence against the former president, referencing witness testimonies, business records, and reimbursement checks.
Criminal defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor Rocco Cipparone told Newsweek in a phone interview on Saturday morning that "if you're not in a courtroom daily and you can't observe the nuances of what go on, including like witnesses' credibility and things like that...it's hard to predict."
Cohen is a disbarred lawyer who previously pleaded guilty to tax evasion, bank fraud, campaign finance violations, and lying to Congress.
Meanwhile, former U.S. attorney and law professor at University of Michigan, Barbara McQuade, told Newsweek in an email on Thursday, that "it is always difficult to predict what juries might do because they each come to court with their own experiences and worldviews, and because they had the advantage of seeing up close every moment of the trial."
"I recognize that this is the worst possible jury pool for Trump," Turley wrote, presumably due to the former president's previous low polling in New York City.
The original article contains 921 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
It's a news article about a YouTube video. Did the journos run out of twitter posts to write articles about or something?
Sweet!
view more: next ›