Lock him up! Former PotUS Trump indicted

[irontaino]

I wouldn't discount NY-ers, there's plenty who are just as dedicated to the cult, especially a lot of older NY-ers (granted NYC by and large is pretty anti-Trump). Not that I think they should put Trump fanatics on the jury just as much as they shouldn't put passionate Trump haters there either.

[Laser101]

I wouldn't discount NY-ers, there's plenty who are just as dedicated to the cult, especially a lot of older NY-ers (granted NYC by and large is pretty anti-Trump). Not that I think they should put Trump fanatics on the jury just as much as they shouldn't put passionate Trump haters there either.

IIRC Trump himself is from New York.
This seems like a case where finding an impartial jury would be rather difficult.

[irontaino]

Guilty on all charges. We'll see what happens with sentencing, appeals, etc. The cult is absolutely malding right about now.

[Muizer]

The cult is absolutely malding right about now.

Well that's the problem with people who politicians not as representatives, but as champions. They are tying their own self-esteem to the fate of their hero, which means they'll go to extreme lengths in their support, because if the hero falls, a part of themselves crumbles with it.

[alhoon]

Guilty on all charges. We'll see what happens with sentencing, appeals, etc. The cult is absolutely malding right about now.

Yeap, Saw it here.

This may indeed help Biden's sinking campaign. The question is whether this will pull Trump under for good or it would create a temporary drop that he would eventually overcome

[Alastor]

I would like to congratulate president Put... eer Biden for leading an impartial and democratic administration that would never weaponise the judiciary in order to hunt down their political enemies. The criminal Naval... eer Trump has today been convicted in an absolutely politically unbiased trial, that had nothing to do with him being a political adversary. May I further suggest an arctic prison to house the felon, somewhere in Sib.... eer Alaska for instance.

On a more serious note, this conviction to me represents yet another milestone in the extreme political polarisation of America. How soon I wonder, before the other side retaliates now that this bridge has been crossed? And perhaps more importantly where does this end?

[Laser101]

I would like to congratulate president Put... eer Biden for leading an impartial and democratic administration that would never weaponise the judiciary in order to hunt down their political enemies. The criminal Naval... eer Trump has today been convicted in an absolutely politically unbiased trial, that had nothing to do with him being a political adversary. May I further suggest an arctic prison to house the felon, somewhere in Sib.... eer Alaska for instance.

On a more serious note, this conviction to me represents yet another milestone in the extreme political polarisation of America. How soon I wonder, before the other side retaliates now that this bridge has been crossed? And perhaps more importantly where does this end?

Trump was convicted by a New York state court; the federal government has no say in the matter.

Besides, as I understand it the charges on which Trump was convicted probably won't lead to a prison sentence anyway.

[Lord Thesaurian]

On a more serious note, this conviction to me represents yet another milestone in the extreme political polarisation of America. How soon I wonder, before the other side retaliates now that this bridge has been crossed? And perhaps more importantly where does this end?

This was about local New York politics hitching a ride on the liberal establishment’s campaign against Trump. While the Biden Admin is certainly the beneficiary of that campaign and this outcome, it isn’t necessarily something where bias in the DOJ/FBI or federal officials came into play, as it did during Russiagate. Bragg bet his career as a NYC DA on getting a conviction from a NYC jury, and it worked.

I am hopeful the nature of conservatism holds back the binary aspect of US politics, the way it did with Biden’s impeachment inquiry. While Trump’s conviction represents the first real success of the years long campaign to get one, I don’t know how it will impact the election. It could drive voter turnout among his base, but that depends on Trump’s reaction on the campaign trail.

It will also further damage his prospects with moderate voters, and he’s already at a demographic disadvantage running as a conservative. Most voters say the verdict doesn’t affect their willingness to vote for him, but on the other hand, twice as many say they’re less likely to than more as a result. If that’s accurate, it could mean mission accomplished, and a more consequential one than any amount of foreign election interference.

Besides, as I understand it the charges on which Trump was convicted probably won't lead to a prison sentence anyway.

The judge has the power to sentence him to prison for a very long time, but the average sentence doesn’t involve jail time. And that’s aside from the unique logistical difficulties of the worst case scenario. Trump will almost certainly appeal and that process could take years to litigate. He could reasonably request under the circumstances that his sentence be suspended for the duration anyway. The real damage is institutional. Not even presidents are safe from efforts to use the justice system to target political enemies. A successful appeal will not erase this precedent.

[Alastor]

Trump was convicted by a New York state court; the federal government has no say in the matter.

No, officially it doesn't. The key word here is of course officially.

The real damage is institutional. Not even presidents are safe from efforts to use the justice system to target political enemies. A successful appeal will not erase this precedent.

This is what I was referring to when I asked how long before the other side retaliates. If I was Trump and I won the upcoming election now, after all this interference and shenanigans, I would have an axe to grind the size of Texas if not bigger.

[Coughdrop addict]

In classic right-wing projection, Trump and his love-sick cultists are positive that Biden pressured NYC to prosecute him because it's what Trump would do if he was in Biden's position. It's the same reason MAGAs are certain that any moment now Democrats are going to kick in their door and drag them to death camps. Or that Russians are always expecting NATO to try to take over their toilet of a country.

In reality neither Biden or liberals or Democrats or any imaginary Communist conspiracies or deep state had anything to do with any of Trump's legal problems. They are all 100% on him and his decisions to commit crimes. Holding Trump accountable for his blatantly unlawful actions is not corruption or tyranny or "lawfare", it’s justice.

[Alastor]

because it's what Trump would do if he was in Biden's position.

Except Trump was in Biden's position and he didn't do that. No promises I suppose for the next time he is in Biden's position, should he win the upcoming elections, but then again he is not the one that set the precedent.

[Laser101]

This was about local New York politics hitching a ride on the liberal establishment’s campaign against Trump. While the Biden Admin is certainly the beneficiary of that campaign and this outcome, it isn’t necessarily something where bias in the DOJ/FBI or federal officials came into play, as it did during Russiagate. Bragg bet his career as a NYC DA on getting a conviction from a NYC jury, and it worked.

I am hopeful the nature of conservatism holds back the binary aspect of US politics, the way it did with Biden’s impeachment inquiry. While Trump’s conviction represents the first real success of the years long campaign to get one, I don’t know how it will impact the election. It could drive voter turnout among his base, but that depends on Trump’s reaction on the campaign trail.

It will also further damage his prospects with moderate voters, and he’s already at a demographic disadvantage running as a conservative. Most voters say the verdict doesn’t affect their willingness to vote for him, but on the other hand, twice as many say they’re less likely to than more as a result. If that’s accurate, it could mean mission accomplished, and a more consequential one than any amount of foreign election interference.

The judge has the power to sentence him to prison for a very long time, but the average sentence doesn’t involve jail time. And that’s aside from the unique logistical difficulties of the worst case scenario. Trump will almost certainly appeal and that process could take years to litigate. He could reasonably request under the circumstances that his sentence be suspended for the duration anyway. The real damage is institutional. Not even presidents are safe from efforts to use the justice system to target political enemies. A successful appeal will not erase this precedent.

The decision by the prosecutor to take the case may have been politically motivated (at least the nature of the case was a bit esoteric), but it seems unreasonable to assume that the outcome of the case was. So you could argue that there's a precedent here for launching frivolous cases, but there's no reason to believe they would succeed.

[Alastor]

The decision by the prosecutor to take the case may have been politically motivated (at least the nature of the case was a bit esoteric), but it seems unreasonable to assume that the outcome of the case was. So you could argue that there's a precedent here for launching frivolous cases, but there's no reason to believe they would succeed.

It actually goes much further than that. The judge is I believe a democrat and if I recall has family working directly for the democrats. But perhaps more importantly, this is New York, in the last election Biden got about 80% of the vote there. And with TDS running rampant across the democratic US there is simply no jury that could potentially try Trump in an impartial manner. Not in New York where they would be biased against him, but I would argue not anywhere considering how polarizing a figure he is. Especially now, in the middle of an electoral campaign the democrats are desperate to undermine. If they didn't want such suspicion to fall on them, they shouldn't have been so blatant. I said it long ago in this very thread, at least wait until after the elections.

[Muizer]

there is simply no jury that could potentially try Trump in an impartial manner. Not in New York where they would be biased against him, but I would argue not anywhere considering how polarizing a figure he is.

There's an extensive screening of potential jurors and unanimity is required for a verdict, so there are some safeguards against bias. It's not like getting a majority in an opinion poll.

[Alastor]

There's an extensive screening of potential jurors and unanimity is required for a verdict, so there are some safeguards against bias. It's not like getting a majority in an opinion poll.

I am aware of the process, but still it's 80/20 and the process is far from foolproof. I will say it again, there is (effectively) no jury in New York that wouldn't be against Trump, it's simply an extremely unlikely eventuality, so unlikely that it should give pause to any independent observer. In fact, this was the exact reason I was convinced he'll be convicted.

[Lord Thesaurian]

This is what I was referring to when I asked how long before the other side retaliates. If I was Trump and I won the upcoming election now, after all this interference and shenanigans, I would have an axe to grind the size of Texas if not bigger.

I have no doubt Trump has no respect for institutions and will seek revenge on his enemies if elected. But his power to do so will be limited by the system and by establishment types in his own party. I am not as worried about that as I am about other urban liberal elites taking a page from New York’s playbook to go after other conservatives at the local level as an easy political win. Nationally, the precedent will reverberate in ways that are hard to predict at this early stage, but that will be sure to damage institutional credibility the way Russiagate did.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/shows/meetthepress/blog/rcna91814

It actually goes much further than that. The judge is I believe a democrat and if I recall has family working directly for the democrats. But perhaps more importantly, this is New York, in the last election Biden got about 80% of the vote there. And with TDS running rampant across the democratic US there is simply no jury that could potentially try Trump in an impartial manner. Not in New York where they would be biased against him.

This, basically. I suppose the jury system might be an arcane curiosity outside the Anglosphere, but trying Trump for election crimes in Manhattan is a bit like taking a poll in Temple, Texas on whether Hillary should be jailed for her email server shenanigans.

There's an extensive screening of potential jurors and unanimity is required for a verdict, so there are some safeguards against bias. It's not like getting a majority in an opinion poll.

When the jury pool is entirely from Manhattan, the selection process would have to eliminate anyone with a pulse to counter the inherent bias. I’m not suggesting the jury conspired against Trump or ignored/fabricated evidence, but they would almost certainly be amenable to any reason for a conviction. Due to the nature of the charges, the jury necessarily had to conclude Trump acted with specific intent in order to convict him for crimes as opposed to the normal misdemeanor charges. How unbiased could you or I be when interpreting the mind of a famous public figure whom we hate with a passion? The right to an impartial jury is guaranteed in the constitution, and it’s unlikely Trump got one.

[Muizer]

When the jury pool is entirely from Manhattan, the selection process would have to eliminate anyone with a pulse to counter the inherent bias.

Trump did get 12% of the vote in Manhattan in 2020. That seems low, but if we take that as representative for a jury draw, the odds of randomly drawing a jury of 12 without a single Trump supporter would be 0.88^12= 22%. Just to get a ballpark figure. Jury selection of course is only partially random.