NY: Convicted Felon Donald Trump!

[LBJer]

I mean, it is correct that these charges are both politically motivated and justified. There is a political motive to not wanting a criminal to be President, but also this probably wouldn't have gotten as far if it were literally anyone else, Republican or Democrat.

How likely is it that the government would have targeted Al Capone for tax evasion charges if that was the only crime he committed?  Yet I've never heard anyone argue that that means it was wrong to do so.

And prosecutorial discretion works both ways--prosecutors can decline to file charges they ordinarily would because of the circumstances of the case, but they can also decide to file charges they ordinarily wouldn't because of the circumstances (for example, because the person involved is a very dangerous individual and they want to get him or her any way they can).  

[LBJer]

Lmao he looks PISSED

Yep.  Certainly not like he's thinking: "The joke's on you, guys--this will just help me to get reelected!"

[LBJer]

After all his racism it's almost poetic that a Black man wiped all that smugness off his face.

Good point.

[LBJer]

Sad!

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1643323710848356353

I would call it poetic justice, not sad.

[LBJer]

Sad!

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1643323710848356353

I would call it poetic justice, not sad.

My comment was obviously ironic, especially since Trump often used "sad!" at the end of his stupid tweets.

gotcha

[LBJer]

April 4 was already a historic day in American history--the day Martin Luther King was assassinated (55 years ago today).  Now it's even more historic--the day that a president was formally charged with a crime for the first time.  

[LBJer]

Honestly, the charges are bit...underwhelming. He should still face accountability, of course.

But they really might be "weak sauce", to be honest.

The most important aspect of these charges are that it's the first time a president has ever been charged with a crime.  Someone had to break that barrier.  Now Merrick Garland and the others considering going after Trump can't use: "What would happen if we charged a president?"  "This has never happened before," "There could be chaos in the streets" etc. as excuses for not acting.  In this respect, Bragg has performed an invaluable service.  

[LBJer]

The whole presumed innocent mantra is just a formality. It doesn't mean a person is actually not guilty.

Especially in a case where there’s such a clear and obvious evidence trail to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you can't even get Mitt Romney to convict, you haven't got it:
https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1643355977557606401?cxt=HHwWgoCwncDjr84...

And of course politicians have no political agenda of their own.

[LBJer]

The whole presumed innocent mantra is just a formality. It doesn't mean a person is actually not guilty.

Especially in a case where there’s such a clear and obvious evidence trail to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you can't even get Mitt Romney to convict, you haven't got it:
https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1643355977557606401?cxt=HHwWgoCwncDjr84...

And of course politicians have no political agenda of their own.

The point is if even the strongest anti-Trump voices say No to conviction because they believe there is no evidence to convict, then the jury is unlikely be to persuaded to convict.

So the picture is that the D.A. choose to indict without having the evidence for probable conviction even with a Manhattan jury.

It's a fiasco, and I was opposed to such moves.

First of all, Romney's not a Manhattan jury.

Secondly, even Romney didn't say there was "no evidence to convict."  And going after people with an "agenda" isn't necessarily wrong--as i said before, Al Capone wouldn't have been targeted for tax evasion charges if that was all he had done.  

[LBJer]

What happened to "just wait until the indictment comes out, surely there's more to it than paying off porn stars guys"?

There IS more.

[LBJer]

The whole presumed innocent mantra is just a formality. It doesn't mean a person is actually not guilty.

Especially in a case where there’s such a clear and obvious evidence trail to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you can't even get Mitt Romney to convict, you haven't got it:
https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1643355977557606401?cxt=HHwWgoCwncDjr84...

And of course politicians have no political agenda of their own.

The point is if even the strongest anti-Trump voices say No to conviction because they believe there is no evidence to convict, then the jury is unlikely be to persuaded to convict.

So the picture is that the D.A. choose to indict without having the evidence for probable conviction even with a Manhattan jury.

It's a fiasco, and I was opposed to such moves.

And who exactly are these "strongest anti-Trump voices"?

[LBJer]

This has been nothing short of a catastrophe.

Evidence?

[LBJer]

Very few people go to jail for lying on taxes or busieness documents. Especially the rich. And for things much worst.

Continuing with the Al Capone analogy, if I'm not mistaken, his sentence for tax evasion was much more severe than was normal for that crime. 

[LBJer]

What happened to "just wait until the indictment comes out, surely there's more to it than paying off porn stars guys"?

I was one of these people, and my immediate reaction (in this thread) to reading the indictment is that it’s extremely disappointing and underwhelming. Based on what has now been made public, I think the case is very weak and probably should not have been brought.

The idea that the case is "very weak" seems to be based on the fact that Bragg wasn't very specific about what election laws were violated.  But some analysts have said that Bragg was actually being smart in not going into specifics.  If so, the conventional analysis is way off the mark.  

[LBJer]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1643415687396831236

You cannot support this clown and be a good person.

Judge Merchan was stupid for not instituting a gag order (even though Trump most likely would have ignored it).

He still can, and absolutely should.

Judge: "You have the right to remain silent."

DT: "I choose to waive that right."

Trump couldn't remain silent if doing so was necessary to avoid being hung, drawn, and quartered.

[LBJer]

What happened to "just wait until the indictment comes out, surely there's more to it than paying off porn stars guys"?

I was one of these people, and my immediate reaction (in this thread) to reading the indictment is that it’s extremely disappointing and underwhelming. Based on what has now been made public, I think the case is very weak and probably should not have been brought.

The idea that the case is "very weak" seems to be based on the fact that Bragg wasn't very specific about what election laws were violated.  But some analysts have said that Bragg was actually being smart in not going into specifics.  If so, the conventional analysis is way off the mark.  

How is this smart? He’ll have to go into specifics at some point.  What specfics could he possibly have?

"At some point," yes, but why tip his hand and let Trump's lawyers know what they're facing sooner than he has to?  And unless you know NY campaign finance law well, you're not really in a position to know what specifics he could have. 

[LBJer]

What happened to "just wait until the indictment comes out, surely there's more to it than paying off porn stars guys"?

I was one of these people, and my immediate reaction (in this thread) to reading the indictment is that it’s extremely disappointing and underwhelming. Based on what has now been made public, I think the case is very weak and probably should not have been brought.

The idea that the case is "very weak" seems to be based on the fact that Bragg wasn't very specific about what election laws were violated.  But some analysts have said that Bragg was actually being smart in not going into specifics.  If so, the conventional analysis is way off the mark.  

The only laws available to him are very vague.

I think he was being vague not on the laws, but on the crimes Trump committed or sought to commit that supposedly turned the 34 counts into felonies instead of misdemeanors.

[LBJer]

What happened to "just wait until the indictment comes out, surely there's more to it than paying off porn stars guys"?

I was one of these people, and my immediate reaction (in this thread) to reading the indictment is that it’s extremely disappointing and underwhelming. Based on what has now been made public, I think the case is very weak and probably should not have been brought.

The idea that the case is "very weak" seems to be based on the fact that Bragg wasn't very specific about what election laws were violated.  But some analysts have said that Bragg was actually being smart in not going into specifics.  If so, the conventional analysis is way off the mark.  

The only laws available to him are very vague.

I think he was being vague not on the laws, but on the crimes Trump committed or sought to commit that supposedly turned the 34 counts into felonies instead of misdemeanors.

I actually don’t think Bragg was vague.  Bragg was pretty specific about the statutes he believes Trump broke, and how he believes Trump violated them.

I’m saying that these statutes themselves are vague, and it is unclear whether the conduct Trump is alleged to have committed constitutes a violation of those laws. And I don’t believe there are any additional specific facts that could be added that would resolve the vagueness, at least not in a way that would merit conviction.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I find such a conclusion premature at best.  

This is worth a look:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/04/04/bragg-past-case-trump-indictment-miller-analysis-ebof-vpx.cnn

[LBJer]

Almost all indictments in this country are political in one way or another, Trump's not least of all, because prosecutors are elected, often partisan, politicians who run on platforms promising to indict or not indict specific categories of suspects or even specific categories of crimes. You'd think that the cavalcade of recent high-profile examples of this being abused would lead to some calls to change this, but apparently not.

No.  Just no.

Okay, almost all indictments in parts of the country where DA races are high-profile ideological barn-burners.

Okay, with that far reaching caveat, probably/generally.

The initial lack of the caveat is on me; I overestimated how much of the country has that dynamic in DA races (which is a bit embarrassing, frankly, because, as you probably know, I've proudly lived most of my life in the sorts of periurban-to-rural areas that tend not to). Thanks for the pushback.

One thing I really like about you is you are one poster who has a track record of being willing to admit when they've made an error, larger small, the latter in this case. That's so rare and precious for atlas.

It's "rare and precious" pretty much everywhere, I think.

[LBJer]

The judge should definitely have already put Trump in jail.  It's pathetic to tell him he could end up there if he keeps violating gag orders when--by the judge's own reckoning--he's already done so NINE TIMES.  A threat only works if the recipient 1.) thinks there's a least a strong possibility it'll actually be carried out, and 2.) finds that prospect disagreeable enough to give the person threatening them what they want.  By not jailing Trump at this point, the judge is just sending the message that he doesn't have the balls to do so. 

[LBJer]

I have to ask, objectively as possible, does Trump spending the night in jail over a truth social post hurt or help him in the court of public opinion?

Those who think he's being jailed "just" for a social media post will be outraged.  Those who think he's being jailed for contempt of court and witness/jury intimidation will support it.  But there's going to be a lot of overlap between those two groups and those who already think well or poorly of Trump, so the net effect will probably be negligible.

The thing is, anything related to Trump seems to have no effect in terms of public opinion.  People's minds are already decided and won't be swayed by evidence, no matter how compelling. 

[LBJer]

According to Daniels, Trump told her during the dinner on the night they had sex: “you remind me of my daughter.” You can’t make this sh**t up.

Not surprising, given that he said he'd be dating Ivanka if she wasn't his daughter.

[LBJer]

This man is unwell.

https://twitter.com/KGreenberg_/status/1788605974674104511

That is absolutely pathetic.  It's on the level of Douglas MacArthur threatening to kill himself so a subordinate would tell him that he (MacArthur) was so valuable that the country couldn't spare him. 

[LBJer]

I'm probably going to jinx it, but here it goes: is it me? Or is this trial going unusually well for the prosecution?

It seems so to me too, but remember that we're only seeing the prosecution's case so far.  The defense will have their own witnesses to call.

That's right. I think the defense's case is getting increasingly more difficult to prove though

The defense doesn't have to prove it's case--only the prosecution does.  The defense doesn't have to prove anything in a criminal trial.

[LBJer]

I completely buy the prosecution's factual case.

But the prosecution has done almost nothing to convince me that what Trump did constitutes a crime beyond a reasonable doubt as to the interpretation of the statutes and campaign finance regulations.

I understand that this is really not supposed to be something a lay jury is asked to decide.  But if I'm a juror and the law is as unclear as it seems to be in the case, and I've been given almost no information as to how this vagueness should be resolved, I'd have to feel it was my responsibility to acquit.

This is why I wish the prosecution had a least brought up adultery as a possible underlying crime to elevated the falsification of records to a felony.  Under this theory of the case, I think Trump is 100% guilty with no ambiguity in the law, and I would absolutely convict him.  But unfortunately the prosecution presented no evidence that Trump committed adultery in New York.

Jury nullification is a rarity

You often hear that, but I'm not sure how true it is.  After all, how do you reliably measure how often it happens?  It's not like juries announce it when they do it.  I think there are individual cases where it's clear it happened given how overwhelming the evidence was that the defendant was legally guilty, but I also think measuring its frequency is probably pretty difficult to do.  

Also, jury nullification traditionally refers only to cases where all of the jurors vote "not guilty," giving the defendant an outright acquittal.  But even if only one juror votes to nullify, there's a hung jury--no conviction.  If the prosecution never retries the case because of this happening one or more times, the defendant remains as free as if they had been acquitted (though unlike with an acquittal, they technically always have the possibility of being retried in the future hanging over them if there's no statute of limitations on the crime).

Additionally, even if nullification is indeed rare, that doesn't necessarily mean it's unlikely in a particular case if the circumstances of that case are also rare.  Prosecutions for adultery in New York and other states where it remains illegal have been extremely infrequent at least for decades, and clearly clash with most people's sensibilities today.  Ironically, the New York legislature recently voted overwhelmingly to decriminalize adultery (though the bill still needs the governor's signature to become law).