ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
Trump's sentencing:
Regarding my opinion of ex-president Donald Trump, I consider his performance during and after he served as president to be inferior to most, (if not all others), and to be superior to no others who ever served as president of the United States.
Some, if not all of the NY criminal crimes that Donald Trump was found guilty of were committed before 2021. A grand jury didn't vote to indict him for those crimes until March 30, 2023. Why did it take so long for the NY district attorney to bring those cases before the grand jury and obtain the criminal indictment of Donald Trump?
The indictment in the same year as the Republican's National Convention to choose a presidential candidate, (regardless of the jury's guilty verdict), taints the case with accusations of selective political prosecution. I regret that indictment was not obtained prior to 2023. In this case, justice delayed is no less justice denied.
I'll further regret if other than taking Trump's passport, the NY court does anything that may interfere with his efforts to run for office. It would be wise for the court to delay Trump's final sentencing until at least a full week after the general national elections. In that case, justice delayed would be in the best interest of our nation.
Our democratic republic may have elected some better people than we deserved, and it's unlikely that anyone we elect is less than we deserve. I believe Trump's 2016 election wasn't less than we voters deserved.
I very, deeply regret that the courts have chosen to permit the cases of Trump's indictments for attempting to overthrow the 2020 election to have been delayed until after the 2024 elections. Those are extreme cases of justice delayed is justice denied. Respectfully, Supposn
Trump's sentencing:
Regarding my opinion of ex-president Donald Trump, I consider his performance during and after he served as president to be inferior to most, (if not all others), and to be superior to no others who ever served as president of the United States.
Some, if not all of the NY criminal crimes that Donald Trump was found guilty of were committed before 2021. A grand jury didn't vote to indict him for those crimes until March 30,
What about the idea that he's obviously guilty and it's also a corrupt prosecution??
Trump's sentencing:
Regarding my opinion of ex-president Donald Trump, I consider his performance during and after he served as president to be inferior to most, (if not all others), and to be superior to no others who ever served as president of the United States.
My guess is that it took so long for NY to prosecute Trump is that they waited for the Justice Department to drop the case before they even started so they wouldn't waste money on the investigation if the Justice Department decided to prosecute Trump for it.
When Cohen made a deal with the Justice Department in 2018 and spent several years in jail as a result Trump was "named" as a potential co-conspirator but not by name. At the time the Justice Department was run by Barr who was a Trump Appointee and he made the decision not to prosecute Trump while he was President because he considered it the law that a President couldn't be prosecuted during his own Presidency. I don't believe there is actual precedence for this decided by the Judicial system so it was essentially a political decision (but one that likely every Justice Department would decide, letting congress impeach a President instead).
When Trump lost the election in 2020 the Justice Department in theory could have prosecuted Trump for the crimes that Cohen had been convicted of. But they chose not to in 2021 after some consideration. They turned over evidence to NY in the event that NY would choose to prosecute Trump for crimes committed in NY and NY had to take time to investigate whether or not they would prosecute. That is likely why it wasn't until 2023 that they went forward with the actual prosecution in NY.
Here is an article that kind of describe...
In Wikipedia it looks like Federal prosecution was dropped in early 2022 and that might have been when NY took on the challenge
I think that is wrong. I believe that judges in America who declare a defendant not guilty before it gets to the jury have to feel that the not guilty verdict is the slam dunk correct one rather than just the way he would vote if there was no jury. How could it be otherwise? If it was, it would mean that letting it go to the jury meant that the judge would vote guilty. That could sway the jury. In other words, there are instances when the
I read this case as trump being slam dunk guilty in a bench trial unless he gets off for a technical reason. If so he will still get off for that technical reason.
It also gave the judge a chance to make a mistake. Ground for appeal might be constraints on an expert witness or directions to the jury. or some **** up by a jury member.
That would make the jury trial a freeroll (probably)
I read this case as trump being slam dunk guilty in a bench trial unless he gets off for a technical reason. If so he will still get off for that technical reason.
It also gave the judge a chance to make a mistake. Ground for appeal might be constraints on an expert witness or directions to the jury. or some **** up by a jury member.
That would make the jury trial a freeroll (probably)
Also, if just one juror was a MAGA maniac there would have been a hung jury and very possibly not another re-trial because the prosecution would have realized it was unlikely to get a pure jury.
As a NY'er my whole life and having grown up in NYC, one of the most liberal places in the US, I am totally aware that at least 33% of the NYC population is conservative. I am kind of amazed that there wasn't a MAGA juror who slipped through the cracks (intentionally) to fight for Trump. They would likely have been form Staten Island or Queens...
So, in those cases where a jury would convict but a judge wouldn't have (but the reason he would have acquitted wasn't one of those technical reasons where he can keep the jury from even getting involved) the defendant will be found "innocent" if his lawyer is smart enough to ask for a bench trial but guilty if his lawyer isn't. Things should not be this way.
That seems one of the more minor concerns about a justice system where having smart lawyers is such a massive advantage.
Also It's an option and options usually have value.
So, in those cases where a jury would convict but a judge wouldn't have (but the reason he would have acquitted wasn't one of those technical reasons where he can keep the jury from even getting involved) the defendant will be found "innocent" if his lawyer is smart enough to ask for a bench trial but guilty if his lawyer isn't. Things should not be this way.
You should try reading some poker books, the good ones explain the flaws inherent in results oriented thinking.
Incidentally, "innocent" is not a verdict. "Not guilty" is a finding that the charges were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not a finding of factual innocence. Trials don't produce findings of factual innocence.
God save the D2s
...
That seems one of the more minor concerns about a justice system where having smart lawyers is such a massive advantage.
Also It's an option and options usually have value.
True. But in this case there would be a way to fix it as long as you were willing to put up with some minor inconvenience and a slightly higher acquittal rate. If the judge would convict, or acquit for non technical reasons, he keeps that to himself until after the jury verdict. And if its guilty he reverses it if his opinion is acquit. In other words, give everyone the freeroll without influencing the jury when the judge would convict.
True. But in this case there would be a way to fix it as long as you were willing to put up with some minor inconvenience and a slightly higher acquittal rate. If the judge would convict, or acquit for non technical reasons, he keeps that to himself until after the jury verdict. And if its guilty he reverses it if his opinion is acquit. In other words, give everyone the freeroll without influencing the jury when the judge would convict.
You obviously didn't understand the part where if a judge can't convict a defendant who has opted for a jury trial unless the jury returns a guilty verdict. That's what it means to have a right to a jury trial.
Incidentally, "innocent" is not a verdict. "Not guilty" is a finding that the charges were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not a finding of factual innocence. Trials don't produce findings of factual innocence.
Learn something new every day. It sounds like you are saying that in some cases the properly acquitted defendant is probably guilty.
Incidentally, "innocent" is not a verdict. "Not guilty" is a finding that the charges were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not a finding of factual innocence. Trials don't produce findings of factual innocence.
In the USA yes, in Italy and many other countries it can be.
We have like 5-6 different "not guilty" formulas. There is the "not proven enough" which would be yours, but we also have "the crime didn't happen" or "it happened but the perpetrator has been found to be someone else" or "the facts discussed aren't actually a crime" and so on
Probably in the vast majority of cases, actually. Prosecutors don't tend to try cases where there isn't overwhelming indicia of guilt.
aren't those more often pleaded though? so the cases which actually go to trial are rarely the slam dunks , rather those with decent chances to win but far from being obvious wins?
aren't those more often pleaded though? so the cases which actually go to trial are rarely the slam dunks , rather those with decent chances to win but far from being obvious wins?
Plea bargaining plays a large part for sure, but when the offers start going into numbers like 15, 20, 25 to life, a lot of defendants would rather roll the dice. It's a byproduct of draconian sentencing. I'd say comparatively fewer cases which result in sentences of 10 years or less actually make it to trial, pretty much for the reasons you stated.
In the USA yes, in Italy and many other countries it can be.
, but we also have "the crime didn't happen" or "it happened but the perpetrator has been found to be someone else" or "the facts discussed aren't actually a crime" and so on
You are mentioning verdicts where the defendants get acquitted because they are deemed innocent. But there is presently no detailed verdict for those others who are acquitted besides there was not enough proof. There is nothing that distinguishes "not quite enough proof" from "not nearly enough proof". Since not quite enough proof would usually mean that the defendant was probably guilty (and therefore in the case of serious crimes would need to be watched closely) D2's astute observation that there are lots of such cases should mean that "probably guilty" ought to be a special category of verdict. We should name it the D2 verdict (unless unbeknownst to us someone has already thought of it.)
You are mentioning verdicts where the defendants get acquitted because they are deemed innocent. But there is presently no detailed verdict for those others who are acquitted besides there was not enough proof. There is nothing that distinguishes "not quite enough proof" from "not nearly enough proof". Since not quite enough proof would usually mean that the defendant was probably guilty (and therefore in the case of serious crimes would ne
Pretty sure I'm not even the millionth person to think of it. Here's one guy:
Harvard Political Review: In your book, “The Best Defense,” you state, “…the vast majority of criminal defendants are in fact guilty of the crimes with which they are charged. Almost all of my own clients have been guilty. A few, of course, have been innocent.” From this quote, it’s clear that a person’s innocence isn’t the determining factor in your decision to take a case. What factors determine the cases you take?
Alan Dershowitz: [Innocence] is not even a factor; in fact, it’s irrelevant. The vast majority of people in the United States who are charged with a crime are of course guilty, but the only way to make sure people are in fact guilty is for criminal defense lawyers to be very aggressive in defending everybody, guilty or innocent.
https://harvardpolitics.com/an-interview...
Obviously, Dershowitz is a tit, but from what I understand he is a pretty decent defense lawyer.
Thread delivers
You are mentioning verdicts where the defendants get acquitted because they are deemed innocent. But there is presently no detailed verdict for those others who are acquitted besides there was not enough proof. There is nothing that distinguishes "not quite enough proof" from "not nearly enough proof". Since not quite enough proof would usually mean that the defendant was probably guilty (and therefore in the case of serious crimes would ne
That would be like treating a paper finding a non-statistically significant size of effect close to the p value you set beforehand differently from one that is further away from the p value and it would be a huge epistemological error actually (one that way too many commentators of scientifical papers do actually)
It sounds to me like you don't accept the results of the democratic process in the state of New York.
As i already wrote i do, and the lesson isn't to make it illegal for NYS to act like that, it's to incorporate elsewhere.
Like the lesson for people who want to protest blocking roads is to stop doing that in republican states.
Trump’s worst fear – becoming lurid tabloid fodder – has been realized.
The scandalous headlines he so desperately wanted to
avoid in 2015 and 2016 are now raining down around him
The Daily Star, a British tabloid, pulled no punches.
The Telegraph, a British conservative outlet, put Trump’s pouting mug on its cover.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidou...
8 years later, Trump haunted by rhetoric about Hillary Clinton.
“We could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment
and ultimately a criminal trial. It would grind government to a halt.”
By Trump’s own stated reasoning, his candidacy creates
“an unprecedented constitutional crisis,” and he has “no right to be running.”
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show...
Trump denies ever calling for Hillary Clinton to be jailed
Cheats at College - Cheats at Business - Cheats at military service -
Cheats at Politics - Cheats at Golf and Cheats at Marriage
