The Trump Guilty Verdict Should Not Have Been This Suspenseful
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- ▶Join this channel to get access to perks:
www.youtube.co...
▶Patreon: / steveshives
▶PayPal: www.paypal.me/...
▶Venmo: venmo.com/that...
▶Twitter: / steve_shives
▶Facebook: / thatguysteveshives
▶Instagram: / steve.shives
Listen to the Late Seating podcast:
▶RSS: / sounds.rss
▶Soundcloud: / late-seating
Listen to The Ensign's Log podcast:
▶RSS: / sounds.rss
▶Soundcloud: / the-ensigns-log-podcast
#trump #politics #trumptrial #trumpverdict #election2024
Everyone: PLEASE VOTE.
Relief? You and me both, buddy. Now I guess we get to find out if the like 30-something percent of GOP voters who said they /wouldn't/ vote for him if he were convicted of a felony were telling the truth or if they were just bluffing because they never believed it would happen.
Trump can still appeal the conviction, which for most of his supporters will be all the excuse they need to say it doesn't count yet.
I am of the belief that even his supporters know he did it. They just don't think he should be held accountable
To be fair, his supporters are buried so deep in willful ignorance they don't even understand what he's on trial FOR. That said, whatever it is, they know they still support him even though he probably did it - and it's a SHAM! ..and that's literally as deep as you can get them to think on the issue.
From what I’ve seen, the majority of his supporters don’t even think the prosecution even named a crime that was committed. And this boils down to their echo chamber, and the commentary that passes as News which they consume. In all of their coverage, it’s not spoken of in terms of falsifying records, it was the “hush money” trial. And as such, how is paying off a person or persons to keep their silence a crime? They don’t understand the nuance of the situation, the timing of the crimes for which he was indicted, and to them, he never committed a crime, according to the media they consume. Nowhere on the 24-hour commentary as news cycle will you find this trial called anything but a “hush money” case.
I look forward to a day when Americans will simply take the time to inform themselves, regardless of the underlying noise. Yet, i don’t hold out too much hope.
Since reconstruction, the rich have learned how important it is to divide us, and keep us in a constant state of chaos, in order for them to make money and amass power. And it’s worked really, really well for them. All we see now is the pinnacle of their efforts, as Americans implode under the weight of their conditioning.
"I didn't do it. If I did, it wasn't that bad. If it was that bad, someone else did something bad, probably."
Thank you New York. Thank you.
This should not have been a nail biter.
My own father has downed the kool-aid, saying the US was better under Trump.
I can’t do much for the next election, but I can cancel out his vote.
Great point on SCOTUS
We need a new constitution. Our founders didn’t expect us to keep the one we have for so long.
It blows my mind he's even allowed to run for Prez again
This is a state case. The Federal Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.
Going forward maybe it would be easier if there were two parties:
Republicans
Not Republican
Simple. :)
Trump seems to attract a kind of insurmountable madness. Chanting shamans, women crying over him... I'm more concerned over those quiet ones, capable of violence. How can people be so delusional, blind and angry? Guilty verdict notwithstanding, I don't feel any safer today than yesterday...
The Supreme Court will absolve him. Doesn't matter if there is no justification, they don't have to answer to anyone.
YOU DIDN'T HIT IT--The legal/judicial/congressional fiascos that have taken place over the past 6 years, they timidity with which the NYC judge handled trump have created a huge wave of distrust in the "judicial systems" that people like trump and his cronies won't be held accountable. So far, the accountability level has been pretty mild so far. WHO IS THERE THAT CAN REALLY BE TRUSTED TO BRING JUSTICE-Jack Smith??, Garland??-they are looking pretty feeble.
Ford Prefect: Bright idea of mine, to find a passing spaceship, get get rescued by it.
Arthur Dent: Oh come on! The chances against it were astronomical.
Ford Prefect: Don’t knock it, it worked.
6:50 worse, they could let him off regardless. They have no oversight.
I agree about feeling relief. I think of Admiral Ackbar sitting back and taking a breath, holding his head down even as the rest of the bridge crew cheer as Vader's super-Star Destroyer crashes into the second Death Star...
I hate going right to this as its such a cheap move, but yet, true: a couple years in jail didn't stop Hitler, why would any of Trump's crimes stop him?
Well Hitler was 36, trumpies 77 and morbidly obese.
Faith in Humanity: +5
Days before the guilty verdict, I told my Catholic relative if Trump is in an orange jumpsuit and in prison, I will start to believe in God, as a athiest I think that is fair statement.
Thing is.. He is still under the gag order until sentencing.. Lets see what he does. LOL.
As far as I know, the gag order only applied to this proceeding. It was to protect the jurors. As the jurors are not involved in sentencing, it's probable that he will not be bound by a gag order any longer unless a second order is placed.
@@enginerd1985 He is not officially convicted until sentencing. It is still proceeding.
I should be happy about this,
Many years ago i would be but i know that trump isn't actually going away, in fact he likely will be more relevant somehow
You see this dude spending years, decades, just skating in and out of legal proceedings and nothing ever being done and him never being held to account. It's weird to see something actually stick, and it STILL feels like whatever the sentence is will just be a wrist slap. The political state of this country really bums me out, man.
I long for the day when I never hear Trump's whining voice again
I hope I live long enough for that day, myself
He's old he will die in at most a decade or two
Kangaroo trial? Ok maga snowflake, you keep crying. 😂😂😂@@CaptainCaveman1170
Look up the definition of a "kangaroo trial"@jorge1170xyz Get back to me.
Give it 5 to 10 years
“For the moral right to prevail, the political right has to fail” is the sad truth stated so succinctly.
Well I ask myself how do I feel about this "COURT CIRCUS" show that just came to an end and my conclusion thought on this matter is the same one I've always had that this country has a " 2 TIERED JUSTICE SYSTEM"......1 for the trump and 1 for thr rest of the country!, how the HELL can you call that justice??......the JUSTICE SYSTEM in this country has shown us that JUSTICE is not EQUAL or the same for EVERYONE......and trump spent his WHOLE time CRYING like B$TCH ALL this time on how he was TREATED UNFAIRLY when in fact we know that he got away with so much CRAP and was handled with KID GLOVES.......he's PATHETIC and DESRVES NO LESS THAN to PRISON for his CRIMES because NO ONE and I MEAN NO ONE is ABOVE THE LAW!
Lincoln's Lyceum Address is running on a loop in my head, right now.
Loving vs. Virginia and Roe vs. Wade were also decided by significant majorities despite the controversies and despite that being an arguably more conservative age than now. People really do unnecessarily politicize the adjudication of the law these days to the point that the Supreme Court justices nominated by Trump lied or misdirected with regard to their intentions just to get on the court and deliver their predetermined verdicts.
And yet, it's Alito and Thomas-who have been on the court for decades-who are the most compromised and unethical.
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been known to side with the liberals on occasion, and even Coney Barrett seems unlikely to go along with banning mifepristone. And none of those three are-or are married to-vocal insurrectionists.
I'm afraid that after this court outcome, Fox, Newsmax, OAN and other right-wing groups will do their best to get every bit of information on the jurors, make that info public, and allow the nuts to go after them and hurt them or worse. This would have a chilling effect on any other court cases and I wouldn't put it past any of them.
It's a joke how people go to prison for possessing pot while a guy who repeatedly tried to overthrow the government and has shown the willingness to try again is given so much leeway.
Isn't that treason?😅
Not by the extremely narrow definition of treason the law uses, apparently.
Much like the incredibly narrow legal definitions of corruption and bribery, which appear to be virtually impossible to get a conviction on.
Sedition actually
Technically it’s sedition.
It’s Money. And Power.
As Wesley Snipes would say, it’s the real Golden Rule. “He who has the Gold, Rules.”
@FuelDropforthewin I wish I didn't have to agree with you (😉). At the same time, some of our other leaders are very close to the legal definition of treason. Felonious Trump may well be guilty in his doings with russia and we simply do not yet know all that he has done to support our enemy.
And none of it matters if we don’t get out and VOTE! Spread the word, keep him out of office!
@@WizelBalan Yeah, we definitely want the only president in history that has been convicted of a felony.
idiot...
At krewe du vieux they give out voter registration forms saying that if you can be here on a random Saturday night at our parade you can find a time to vote.
The fact that this isn't enough to prevent him from running for presidency altogether is disgusting.
Though not being able to get out there and run his mouth constantly will give more people time to think about the things he has said in recent months. The more time he allows people to come to their senses the more votes he will lose, he has only gotten this far because he literally never shuts up. If I'm analyzing the psychology of the situation correctly he has to keep up the pace and gain some swing votes or he's done. We just have to hope the judge isn't gonna give him a slap on the wrist and house arrest. He needs at least some time in prison and that might break him if I'm reading him correctly, he is as soft as a babies asshole, as breakable as a thin glass sculpture and he will crack from mere hours.
@@costelinha1867 No it isn't. Google Eugene V Debs.
what scares me the most is how it NEVER seems to be OVER. I'm so TIRED of this. How the hell does a convicted FELON still somehow have a chance to win?
Tru dat
Because the only thing shorter than American attention is American memories.
It feels like the country is fueled partially by insanity.
And while running for the party that is more than willing to grind other convicted persons into fertilizer in the name of Law & order. The irony.
Agreed. Hardly makes sense that anyone could sit opposed of this clear verdict. How can a cult hold so much sway on USA politics? We need to be more educated than this.
And he walked out free as a bird after being found guilty of 34 felonies. Forget to pay your car insurance and you are off to jail.
I wish this meant he couldn't run for President anymore.
Honestly, I'm more worried about whatever would be demagogue the Republicans rally behind after Trump. The advantage with Trump is at least he's too stupid to hide his corruption. Whoever comes next will likely be far more politically savvy and all the more dangerous for it.
I wish that too. So we gotta make sure he's not re-elected this November. Vote Blue💙💙
If felons could not run, every politician would work to convict their opponents. Not something I want to see. I expect the GOP will try to find something to prosecute Biden or Obama or Clinton for just to get revenge as it is.
I hate to be a wet sponge, but we really don't want to live in a country where being convicted of a crime legally disqualifies one from public office-that sort of power is almost always wielded by the powerful against the powerless.
What _I_ wish for is that no two major party would dare *nominate* someone convinced-or even accused-of these crimes.
VOTE BLUE! LOCK HIM UP! trump = TURD CIRCUS 💩 🎪
It's honestly hilarious to me that, if Trump were a little smarter, and just made a personal payment to another private party out of his own pocket, there would have been no crime. Or if he'd only done it with a single payment, there would have only been one count to charge him on.... But he tried to hide it in the worst way he could, so he's got the penalty for 34 times coming for him.
It's uncannily similar to how Vince McMahon went down. He could easily have gotten away with it, but just had to push things.
The coverup is nearly always worse than the crime
Steve - as an Aussie - the way America holds almost an 'awe' around her Presidents is sorta fascinating. They are after all only people with all the fallibilities of being a person. A cult of personality can never be a healthy thing, and the fact that so many of your fellow citizens will say the court was a sham (irrespective of what we are seeing play out in your Supreme Court) weakens your democracy. Most sane people will know Trump only thinks of Trump - it's good to know 12 of your fellow citizens also saw through the lies, pressure and threats to say to the world - No one is above the law - not even our Presidents! I just hope sanity prevails and there is no ramifications from a 'base' that puts people in harms way - that's my biggest worry.
I feel you. Im in canada & i swear our RWers here are DESPERATE to become magats. It's deeply disturbing how a civil service job makes fools of far too many.
Fellow Australian here. It’s also weird to me how Americans still continue to refer to their former presidents as president. Could you imagine if Scott Morrison was still referred to as prime minister Scott Morrison instead of former prime minister. It’s even weirder to me that people convicted of crimes there are still able to run for the highest office in the country. The whole thing is weird
I think more and more Americans are aware of how stupid the whole presidency thing is, too much expectation to do good and power to do bad. I personally wish we didn't have one.
It really comes down to Americans being told, early on in school, that we're the "greatest nation on earth." So we practically worship our flag and form of government, ignorant to why it formed (by rich slave-holders who were being taxed) and refuse to accept anything is better than us. I love my country and want it to do much better, but a friend of mine gave a great analogy... the US is the worker in an office who completes a job and then stands up to proclaim, loudly, that it's THE BEST at whatever task it did while the other workers (countries) complete tasks without yelling and bragging.
As an Aussie that's exactly how I feel, it's really odd how high they hold these people above themselves. Aussies aren't afraid to call our leaders a wanker or a dickhead to their face.
As it turns out, when regular people are shown the facts of who Trump is, without the mediation of right wing echo chambers and online bullshit spinning, they get to the right conclusions.
i think they call what you said a "zinger". that sting can be felt for miles.
A Democrat could never get away with the things Trump has done and said
The closest we got to Trump on the Democrat side was Anthony Weiner and we all know what happened to that little shit.
That's because democratic voters don't fanatically support their candidates no matter what. the GOP protects Trump because that is politically expedient for them, as supporting him wins the support of his cult. Supporting an openly corrupt democratic official instead turns off democratic voters, so the incentive structure is different.
Absolutely! Senator Al Franken is proof.
Democrats have gotten away with plenty, generally they aren't dumb enough to talk about it on tape.
@@JimiBurleigh Al didn't do anything, paricularly not tens of felonies.
Prison seems unlikely, but so did a guilty verdict.
Any sentence seems likely to be stayed pending appeal (which will late years). But that's a double-edged sword, because until/unless the Appellate Division reverses the ruling or grants a mistrial, he remains a convicted felon in the state of New York.
He ain't going to prison. The USA doesn't jail the useful puppets of the right-wing hegemony. If he ever becomes useless, they will jail him in a New York minute.
@@CaptainCaveman1170Sure maga boy. You're tears in November are gonna be so sweet. 😂😂😂
The Supreme Court doesn't hear criminal cases unless there's a question about due process in a state capital case. This ain't that, so it should never get that far.
I'm pretty sure any case can go to their desk, and it's up to them to decide not to hear it if it isn't about a constitutional question. But it takes just 3 votes to decide to hear it
And yet.
This is simply incorrect the Supreme Court can hear state criminal cases any time there is a challenge to a constitutional right, Ever heard of Miranda vs Arizona? (IE Miranda rights) Terry v Ohio? (origination of the Terry stop by police) neither case was capital and neither was due process based those are just 2 well known examples.
@@dekulrunoBoth are due process cases, which is what the OP said. Miranda and Terry are absolutely due process - Miranda gives you the right to a lawyer and to not answer questions and Terry is about the due process of search.
@@dekulruno Only if questions regarding the constitutionality of process comes into question - as far as I can tell no such questions have been raised.
Should the Supreme Court declare that Presidents have complete immunity from prosecution for their actions? No. Every US President should face trials for all of their wrongdoings. I believe that even more after hearing D. John Sauer arguments in front of the top US court.
"Dear Justices,
I'm still president for a few more months. Just a reminder.
Yours truly,
Dark Brandon"
What is great about this one is that this happened as CANDIDATE Trump - he wasn't president when it happened meaning that even if they do vote Presidential Immunity, then it shouldn't apply. Of course, this assume a level of rationality in the US justice system.
@@jy3n2 Trump was still screeching about Biden trying to have him assassinated, just after saying presidents can do whatever they want with no legal repurcussions.
This is a state criminal matter, the US Supreme Court can not take this case unless it's a question of constitutionality or a federal charge ( that's a no on both ). This is a state matter and no one but the state in question can let him off the hook.
Actual lawyer (30+ years as a litigator). Most court cases that reach the Supreme Court do *not* have a clear cut solution. There has to be an issue of Constitutional importance that is disputed, or a dispute between the Circuit Courts of Appeal, to even get your case in front of the Supreme Court in the first place. SCOTUS exists to call the hard ones. That's why it doesn't surprise me that we have narrow majority rulings and dissents so often. What's different now is the willingness of the Republican appointees to disregard settled law, disregard actual history (for the ones that are so-called "originalists"), and disregard the facts to reach the desired ideological results. Combine that with the lack of ethical rules. I'm sure Justice did these things before, but they are blatant about it now.
As far as Donald Trump's appeal, there are no U.S. Constitutional issues that would make this a case eligible to go to SCOTUS at all.
I know that polling has shown enough independents have stated that a Trump felony conviction will cause them not to vote for him that it will improve President Biden's chance of a second term considerably. I hope.
IndependentsTM say a lot of things. Then the last few weeks before Election Day happen.
you know shits bad when both sides of the whole mess are absolutely tense.... its really shows how badly he, and his comrades havve degraded trust in the system.
This is a very good _start._ Now the Toddler-in-Chief needs some MAJOR TIMEOUT without his social media privileges.
"How will they fail to capitalize on this?" What a great question for all of our leadership.
hmm, well, I heard it here first
So did I
and I heard it second!
Same
Same
One minor quibble: I’m a Canadian law student, and I can tell you that many of our Supreme Court’s decisions are far from unanimous. Lack of unanimity isn’t the problem; humanity is complicated and law always requires a certain amount of creation in interpretation. The key is that the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions, for now anyways, haven’t broken along party lines. There are absolutely trends in how particular justices feel on given issues, but there aren’t “Liberal” or “Conservative” justices. Unlike in the U.S. where the Supreme Court is a de facto official member of the party system along with the executive and legislative branches
This. The split along party lines, regardless of the underlying issue, is the problem
Let's not forget his documents case, his state vote interference case and his January 6th case, delayed but still pending.
I had a full nights sleep for the first time in a week and I learned two things within minutes of waking up.
1.) The vacuum bag I used with my sous vide had a tiny puncture in it so my dinner is ruined.
2.) Trump is a convicted felon.
Mixed bag, but I'll take it.
No matter how fucked up things get in my own country, I look at the States and see how things might be EVEN MORE fucked up. Does that provide me comfort, or give me reason to gloat? Hell, no. It scares the shit out of me, on so many levels.
Re: Supreme Court, for me it was Bush v. Gore being decided along political lines that made me realize the Supreme Court was broken. Best case scenario the justices on one side or the other were trying to decide the legal question, and the other side was political; worst case all 9 justices voted on an ideological basis.
I'm hoping that it becomes a major consequence, but I know in reality to temper my expectations.
Great points on the SCOTUS!!!
To quote StarCraft II:
"It's about g0ddamned time."
That jury had to have at least a couple of people that support Trump. It feels like even if a person did support Trump, once you put them in a room with a handful of reasonable people, trust them to look at the facts and make a serious decision, they'll do the right thing. I wonder what that says about our current environment. What everyone is _really_ divided over, and how we might fix it.
There was one who got all of their news from Fox and Truth Social. So, there is hope after all.
It should be fine.
Let's not forget covid filtered out a nice chunk of the republican party
Your point about the Supreme Court almost never being unanimous is a huge one.
The highest arbiter of law is just another political arm - an unelected one at that. It’s broken as hell.
Didn't think they get guilty on all 34 charges.
Yeah, at the start I thought they'd find him guilty of falsifying documents but wouldn't have enough proof to link it to the election. But the prosecution was *surprisingly solid* and the defense was... well, they didn't really mount a defense.
Like, if Cohen was lying about his conversations with the bodyguard... why wouldn't they call the bodyguard as a witness??
That was the only thing that surprised me.
My guess was it was going to be a hung jury. It definitely wasn't going to be "Not Guilty" votes from every juror.
I did given his lawyer had already served his time for this very crime and how long they waited to actually charge trump figured they only went with charges they knew they had proof of. Figured it would be all or nothing with the verdict.
@@Steve-wo7gt Had it been hung, the Judge held onto alts and would have just R&R hold up in favor of one of the alt jurors. There was never going to be a hung jury. This judge was never going to let that happen to someone he wanted convicted, facts and law be damned.
Glad to see you posted your opinion Steve.👍 You've got a good head on your shoulders and you think before you speak. We need more people like you
When we ever be rid of this beast?
Hmmm off topic but as a fellow Marylander (tho I live in Oregon now) I appreciate your brazen glorifying of our state flag! Not only is it the most unique flag in the country, I think it’s one of the most interesting. Screw all those assholes who think it’s ugly… they have no culture.
Simply amazing! All it would have taken was a single juror who wanted to be a fox news celebrity for the next four years and it would have never happened.
Hopefully this conviction breaks any reluctance other prosecutors may have had, and may they bring their indictments.
I entirely agree with the title of the video. The trouble here in the land of Profitieieren Über Alles is that "Justice™" still generally means "No uppity poors, brown folks, queers, sinners, womerns, and 'specially any combination of the aforementioned".
I had tuned completely out of this whole mess, so seeing this video was quite the nice surprise. I had genuinely expected Tumpelstiltskin to just be able to dodge courts indefinitely and just keep doing the crap he's doing while the US justice system sort of sits in the background like some old-school cartoon villain going "Grrrr! One day I'll get you, Fantaman! One day!!!".
As for his sentencing I hoping for either The Phantom Zone or Rura Penthe.
I'd rather it be a blindfold and cigarette, but the Phantom Zone is nice as well.
A case like this shouldn't even have any business making it to the Supreme Court. It's not even a matter of how obviously guilty Trump is, it should be even more obvious that this case has nothing to do with constitutionality.
Its a state case, the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.
@@robertbarrows6687THANK you. I respect Steve, and I appreciate that he made this video from a place of despondency, but, while I'm not a lawyer, I'm pretty sure he knows even less about the legal process than I do.
It predates his election to President, so it does not matter if he had immunity as President.
@@robertbarrows6687The 14th amendment gives them jurisdiction once the case finishes with appeals in the state.
@@lennierofthethirdfaneofchu7286 Sorry-which part of the 14th Amendment? The due process clause? That seems like a reach.
I’m just worried what the backlash will be, since he’s convinced but if he’s sentenced to any prison sentence, even one day, but rightfully should be a few years at the least. I hope the fear of rioting or shootings doesn’t dissuade a justified sentence.
We need a Federal Hoilday for elections.
Then more people would vote. The people who create federal holidays don't want that.
@@kurtwpgMore specifically, the urban poor would be able to vote. The GOP REALLY doesn't want that.
Given that this..... being, is well over a decade and a half older than my mom was and he outlived her this is the least that could happen to him in my book.
Jury made America great again ❤
On the contrary, Steve. If a case is clear-cut, it *won't* make it to the Supreme Court. If it's clear cut, then they'll refuse to hear it (if the appellate court decided correctly) or will return the issue to the lower court with a "try again" message (typically unsigned).
You seem to believe in a court that no longer exists. The Supreme Court has proven itself to be completely corrupt and fully in the hands of lunatic right wingers. Elito and Thomas have demonstrated without a doubt they are compromised, and to think that Trumps three appointments to the court aren’t right wing maniacs is completely illogical. Maybe catch up on the last 30 years of verdicts and news? Do you think that Roe v Wade was established law, like the Trump court appointments all testified to being absolutely settled law? But when they get onto the court, they take an absurd case that is “clear cut” from a lower court and overturn 50 years of settled law…because reasons. I’m sorry, but the Supreme Court is no longer a legitimate entity that rules according to legitimate arguments and what the rule of law states. It just isn’t.
as this was a state case, not a federal case, I don't think it can be appealed to the supreme court.
As corrupted as that court is never put it past them to just make up a reason why they can. I swear, the Right keeps getting handed offramp after offramp to be free and rid of this guy buy rather than take them they double down.
So that’s not entirely accurate- it *could*, but if and only if they were making allegations of unconstitutional practices either by the officers who conducted the investigation of the offenses- like if they were alleging evidence was illegally obtained and therefore shouldn’t have come in at trial, or or by the court/the prosecution during the trial- ie failure to produce evidence to the defense, etc. But again, that severely limits his federal appellate rights, in this case at least. Now, even if they do file an appeal alleging a federal constitutional question, the Supreme Court picks and chooses its case and are under no obligation to take all cases presented them. Most cases aren’t granted certiorari. Now the problem is if they did pose a federal question and it made it all the way to them (which I don’t think they’ll be able to do, but if they did…) only 4 Justices need to agree to hear it to grant cert. With 3 Trump appointments on the court and other conservative justices it’s a possibility… but they have to be able to raise a federal question first and I’m hoping they can’t!
Orange is the new "Baggy Blue suit"! Lol
So much winning.... :D
VOTE BLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :=8D
My ex,called me an hour ago with celebration in his voice - I giggled. It was nice - I love hearing from you too Steve!!❤❤
@@LegoDork Your comment is confusing in a super funny way. The pedantic side of me wishes to inform you that a teaspoon of "that" wouldn't do anything for hunger, but I appreciate a grotesque allusion to fellating. So thx I think?
I, like Steve, am hoping that the proverbial guardrails incumbent in our justice system will ultimately prevail.
I feel sorry for the judge. Sentencing is a no win situation for him. No one will be happy regardless of what he does. Yes, everyone should be equal under the law. But this is a truly unique and complicated situation. Like it or not we have a convicted felon who is a former president running for president with an election in a half year. Unprecedented doesn't even come close to conveying how bizarre this situation is.
That only goes so far…yes it’s unprecedented but he still broke the law and there is precedent for that. Dragging this only convinces people that they are trying to find a way to go easy on him…either for his sake or their own if they feel threatened or just don’t want scrutiny that would fall on all privileged people who do what they want
I’m an attorney. This is a NY state case, not a federal case. The highest court for most issues would be the NY Court of Appeals (the state Supreme Court, but NY labels their court levels weirdly). There would be the possibility of federal habeas proceedings and such, but there’s a lot less to work with there.
And not to shit on anybody’s hopes, but this is a low grade felony and he’s a first time offender in the eyes of the law. He won’t receive a jail sentence.
We need to beat him (ugh, again) at the ballot box. Then get the DC Jack Smith case to trial and conviction. Then - lock him up.
The emperor has no clothes... that don't match his spray tan.
The repetitive gag order violations might weigh in on the sentencing
"it's hard to believe that the supreme Court won't taking this." Yeah, the idea of the supreme Court not taking this gets me hard too.
*Right!?* Also, I dig the glasses. You look very erudite.
Live long and prosper.
not even sure the supreme court has the authority to hear an appeal on this
They don't. This is a pure state criminal matter. There are no federal charges or constitutional questions in this case.
Appeals can be made to SCOTUS after losing in a state's highest court, which is the New York Court of Appeals in this case.
US Supreme Court can review state court decisions when the US Constitution's principles are involved. 45's lawyers will claim some right of his as a US citizen has been violated during the trial. It will likely be procedural and arcane, but even delay is a victory. At 78, a day of delay is a day off his sentence.
Oh dang. Somehow you broke the news for me. Good job.
It's more than defeating Trump for me. I'm a member of the LGBTQIA community in Texas; we have to repudiate the entire Republican Party, top-to-bottom.
And people think we're biased when we just say the entire Republican party, any of them. No, it's not bias. I seriously have combed over every goddamn member of the Republican party state government in Texas and not a single one is pro-LGBT. They are all against it, some extremely so. None of them support LGBT rights. Conversely, most of the Democratic party and most Independents have shown their support for LGBT+ people at several points in recent history. Say what you want about the Democrats, the fact remains they are far more friendly to LGBT people than any Republican currently in office. That's just the reality we're living in. I know who I'm voting for. Can others say the same?
YT just screwed me on a pertinent, albeit lengthy, post 😡
P. S. Even on the short original, so here it is-again:
To quote Leonard Cohen; “Hallelujah!”
Oh good, I had tuned out of this and am glad it finally was decided.
Others have said this, Steve, but this was a NY state trial; Trump can appeal this through the NY state court system, but the federal Supremes have no jurisdiction here. The presidential documents trial in Florida being prosecuted by Jack Smith and presided over by Aileen Cannon is a federal case, though.
Technically speaking SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction over the Manhattan case because it's based entirely on State law: there is no federal question. Now, that doesn't mean they won't try to shoe-horn in a bullshit reason to take the case, but my guess would be not.
He won about 25% of the vote in NYC. Which means it's likely that 2-4 jurors voted for him. And then voted to convict him
There are **currently serving** congressmen who are still upset about Brown vs. Board of Education.
One of the important things about appeals, is that it's NOT simply re-trying a case in attempt to get a different verdict - an appeal can only happen if there is found to be some kind of procedural flaw in the case that resulted in the original verdict, or some piece of NEW evidence that wasn't originally available during the previous case that would've had a substantive impact on the original verdict. This is where you'll usually hear about things like 'prosecutorial misconduct' and 'new evidence has surfaced', that sort of thing. The new evidence or proof of errors in the original case has to be heard by a judge (not a jury), then THAT judge decides whether the new information warrants a re-trial or not (most do not). Thankfully, you don't just get an appeal and get to retry a case simply because you don't like the original verdict and you want a different outcome.
The fact that there is no specific rule that forbids a convicted president from taking office reminds us that it was the turkeys writing the rules for Christmas, and they had a full length mirror to look at while they were drafting them.
No, that's wrong. The lack of such prevents a political prosecution from sidelining a candidate. Look up Eugene V Debs.
As I understand it, and I'm not an expert at all, the republican Party chose the Judges of the SC and not Trump himself. This would have meant work, and he hates work.
And the SC Judges propably are not willing to harm their own position, the reputation of the SC by overturning the verdicts. At this point this would do more harm to the institution and more so to the republican party than they would get any use out of it.
2:25 - this is why here in Australia, Judges are not appointed by Politicians and Political Parties - they are independently appointed, whereby it's treated as a job application, you apply and you either get the job on your own merits or you don't, the PM does not have the power to appoint his own Judges. So there is a proper separation between the Government and the Justice system. The High Court Judges here don't vote on ideological lines, but purely to the law, and there have been judgements where both sides of politics have been affected, like when recently, the High Court ruled that immigrants could not be indefinitely held in detention, which goes against what was previously supported by both major parties here in Australia
Agreed, but it is relieving, and it would also be surprising if he was sentenced with substantive consequences, and in the eyes of the public, if only because the powerful seldomly ever face real consequences.
The case was given to a jury not the Supreme Court so I wasn't really that worried about a guilty verdict.
Cases that are clear cut don't make it to the Supreme Court. They exclude cases that aren't legally controversial, at least, that's by design.