It would get you or me convicted.
It won’t get Trump.
There will be one juror who is an evangelistic MAGA believer, but never bothered to sign up for Facebook, so there will be no way to prove it and disqualify him during voir dire…
This morning Ali velshi reading the indictment popped up in my phone (podcast “ prosecuting Donald trump”). Mr velshi read the whole thing, no commentary, just word for word.
Listening to it while lazing in bed, is really interesting. The bit about the concern about boxes on the plane with luggage came right after the bit about them delaying the move from fl to nj. So that concern is that they are moving at least 3 months of household items for at least 3 people, if not more.
Adding numerous boxes with the household stuff would certainly go over the weight limit.
When you listen to it you can just picture the 3 card monty they were doing with these boxes.
Photographic evidence, yet he’s still free. And there are those who still believe there is something on Hunter Biden’s laptop. I just don’t get it.
There are a lot of ignorant, gullible people in this world.
I’m wondering what is the best historical precedent, I could read up on, for a caudillo-type leader refusing to accept due process of law in a presidential republic.
The closest for the U.S. might be Jeff Davis unsuccessfully fleeing after losing the Civil War. But I’m convinced Trump won’t flee. Might there be a closer precedent I could read about? Perhaps a real South American ex-president who called out his supporters to protest and/or block his arrest as Trump is doing?
Maybe this should be in Factual Questions, but I thought it might be too political.
It has certainly happened to various leaders in both Pakistan and Bangladesh. Bangladesh especially is two dueling family feifdoms/parties that take turn jailing each other and being re-elected from near-jail only to reverse the tables.
Myanmar comes close. The situation after Fujimori in Peru has many parallels as well. I’d have to do more digging but the history since about 1750 in Latin America is very fertile soil for this sort of stuff. Some Philippines history smells familiar as well.
My sister was listening to something on her laptop in the other room, and I only heard a bit of it. Apparently, Lindsay Graham was on Stephanopolis talking about the indictment. He sounded unhinged. And maybe a little drunk.
Knew about the first part. Don’t know if he drinks, but I suspect he and many others a bit concerned about the stuff that’s going to fall on them from Georgia.
Right. They lost the demographics war some time ago. Now they can only win in solid red states or by cheating.
Not even. Those fat, ak47 waving rednecks? Most of them are loud mouthed cowards. The really hard core are maybe 10%, and even then, most of them are cowards. Sure, he has 30% conned, but that doesnt mean they will die for him.
There’s more than Facebook.
Has he been convicted yet? There hasn’t even been a bail hearing yet.
If he cant make bail he will be jailed, but of course he can. He will have to surrender his passport, maybe even jet a monitoring device and be limited to his house.
Here’s some fresh and I think happy news:
I think Melania was just tired of tripping over Donnie’s special boxes every time she turned around. I don’t think “it won’t fit on the plane” was a serious concern.
Trumps don’t fly commercial. Trump has his own plane, a 757-200. A quick search tells me that the cargo versions of that plane carry between 80,000 and 90,000 pounds. I don’t think that luggage and household goods for three people would weigh so much that a couple of dozen boxes wouldn’t fit.
This took me aback, so to speak… Had to rethink what you meant. 
We are about to see a shitshow of epic proportions. Trump doesn’t give a damn about his fans, Republicans, the election or the country and he will use all of that to burn everything to the ground to “win”.
Not really.
Some details here:
Five Reasons to be Skeptical of the Youth Vote
On some issues, the Democrats take the more popular stance (abortion). On some, the Republicans take the more popular stand (immigration). I’m not saying the Democrats should start bashing immigrants! I’m just saying that the parties pretty evenly divide the electorate, and Trump’s indictment will no more change this than will demographic shifts.
Thank you for answering my question before I actually asked it. I was wondering if Trump could forego a jury trial and just have the judge decide (apparently this is called a bench trial).
As I understand it, either side can request a jury trial but there is a risk of angering the judge if the prosecution asks for a jury. It seems to me that asking the judge to recuse would also anger her. So what is the chance that we have a bench trial and at the end she just rules in favor of Trump? Does the prosecution have any ability to appeal a clearly biased judge ruling or does double jeopardy apply?
In regard to Trump supporters, this is what really terrifies me:
KARI LAKE: “If you want to get to President Trump, you’re going to have to go through me, and 75 million Americans just like me. And most of us are card-carrying members of the NRA. That’s not a threat, that’s a public service announcement”
Sounds like an incitement to violence. Arrest her.
I don’t think that would anger the judge. It’s customary to have a jury in a criminal case. And it would mean that she doesn’t have quite as much pressure applied to her.
It’s impossible to quantify the chances, but she’d have to make “findings of fact” and, yes, it would be subject to the possibility of appeal.
Frankly, I think Cannon can fuck up a jury trial more easily than a bench trial. She can shade voir dire rulings, rule slightly more favorably to the defense’s witnesses than the prosecution’s, preclude certain evidence from coming before the jury, mess with the jury instructions…
Even if they despise one party, judges aren’t supposed to favor one side over the other. Being “angry” at a party is not a basis to ignore facts and evidence.
Unfortunately, I don’t think this judge is capable of doing that.
We’ll see what happens. We’ll know a lot more on Tuesday when she rules with respect to scheduling for pretrial motions, restrictions on what Trump can say about the case pending trial, etc.
Of course double jeopardy applies. What happened to the liberal ideal of procedural fairness being far more important than getting convictions?
That was extremely bad.
It is hard to see how you can have that kind of incitement without it leading to deaths.
I can’t help think of the incitement in Israel before the assasination of Prime Minister Rabin.
However, we are, I hope and mostly think, still a government of laws and not of men. Compared to, say, global warming, or the war in Ukraine, or abortion, or about ten other issues I can think of, whether Trump gets off on a technicality is not an overwhelming problem.
National Review Op-Ed says the indictment should make a difference: