Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (3 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

Don’t be silly. MAGA fetishes the death penalty. Most regular people do not.

Once again you miss apply another of your ridiculous stereotypes. I strongly opposed to death penalty, and I also strongly oppose incarceration for nonviolent crimes.

So no. No prison time for the crimes the indictment alleges.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Whatever the jury decides that is within the law for the crimes that he is convicted of and is practical/doable given that Trump has a SS detail. I don't think the death penalty is on the table. Would likely be some type of home arrest. Although preferably not one of his estates, but a more basic home.

That is reasonable also. I think Trump would be happy in a double wide, so long as the living room were a replica of the oval office, so he could continue to president from there. That being the case, he may decide not to Pardon himself after all but just get his work done.

 

[superchuck500]

Interesting. I had been meaning to ask you if in federal criminal cases the judge or the jury decides the sentence.

So if the judge decides the sentence based on guidelines with not much discretion, my prediction would be that this would make it even less likely that a jury would convict. Suppose the jury were able to convict on the charges in which the prosecution presented strong evidence and hypothetically the defense did nothing to refute it. I think the holdouts on the jury would have been more likely to go along with guilty verdicts if they could also couple that with a light sentence not including any jail time.

Honestly you don't have to be a trump supporter to realize what could happen if Trump is actually put into prison when he is the choice of the majority of Republicans for president. I think that Trump opponents are caught up in a little bit of Hysteria and not really thinking this through if they are wanting him to actually serve prison time.

 

[Saintamaniac]

So if the judge decides the sentence based on guidelines with not much discretion, my prediction would be that this would make it even less likely that a jury would convict.

Again, as it was already pointed out to you, that would mean that jurors would lack any kind of integrity to fairly judge the evidence and come to a guilty or innocent verdict. I don't know what kind of jury you have served on but when I served jury duty, our job was to look at the evidence and render a verdict of guilty or not guilty. Our job had nothing to do with sentencing and neither will this jury. You are confidently presuming that any trump supporters will demonstrate extreme lack of integrity as to determine guilt based whether or not they have input on sentencing...something that is outside of their purview or area of responsibility. Essentially you are saying that trump supporters lack integrity. That's a pretty big self-own right there.

Suppose the jury were able to convict on the charges in which the prosecution presented strong evidence and hypothetically the defense did nothing to refute it. I think the holdouts on the jury would have been more likely to go along with guilty verdicts if they could also couple that with a light sentence not including any jail time.

Once again, you are suggesting that anyone who supports trump has no integrity or loyalty to the constitution. You are saying that you believe they would "go along" with a guilty verdict. That means they won't think or judge for themselves. They will leave a man's faith up to "however yall decide to vote". That means that you as a trump supporter would do and act the same way. You are saying the quiet part out load again.

Honestly you don't have to be a trump supporter to realize what could happen if Trump is actually put into prison when he is the choice of the majority of Republicans for president.

Really don't care what trump supporters try to do if he gets put in prison. In fact, I would welcome them to attempt another J6. It will be a considerably different outcome this time. Prison time or lead.

 

[brandon]

So if the judge decides the sentence based on guidelines with not much discretion, my prediction would be that this would make it even less likely that a jury would convict. Suppose the jury were able to convict on the charges in which the prosecution presented strong evidence and hypothetically the defense did nothing to refute it. I think the holdouts on the jury would have been more likely to go along with guilty verdicts if they could also couple that with a light sentence not including any jail time.

A reference to the fact that Trump supporters might lack the integrity to uphold the rule of law.

Honestly you don't have to be a trump supporter to realize what could happen if Trump is actually put into prison when he is the choice of the majority of Republicans for president.

A reference to the fact that Trump supporters might be terrorist butt crevasses.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I would say whatever the average sentence for these type of crimes. I don't know what that is, but I'm guessing between 10 to 20 years in prison.

And while I'm not sure it can be offered, I'd be inclined to let him avoid jail if he pled guilty and agreed to not being allowed to run for federal office.

I think that many on here would agree with that second part, but not be as honest about it. To do so would admit to the true purpose of the indictment, and the past pseudo-investigations. I have called this "We'll STOP it 2.0" but in fact, it is more like Operation This Time We've Finally Got Him, with an iteration number well into the double digits.

It would also be admitting that Trump indeed has a reasonable chance of returning to the White House.

I would love to see Trump's lawyers float the idea of Trump agreeing to never running for office again in exchange for the charges being dropped or deferred so long as he doesn't just to see how quickly the Democrats would change their tune about crime and punishment.

 

[Saintamaniac]

A reference to the fact that Trump supporters might be terrorist butt crevasses.

If they act like the Taliban, then we treat them like the Taliban. There will be plenty of ammo.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Again, as it was already pointed out to you, that would mean that jurors would lack any kind of integrity to fairly judge the evidence and come to a guilty or innocent verdict. I don't know what kind of jury you have served on but when I served jury duty, our job was to look at the evidence and render a verdict of guilty or not guilty. Our job had nothing to do with sentencing and neither will this jury. You are confidently presuming that any trump supporters will demonstrate extreme lack of integrity as to determine guilt based whether or not they have input on sentencing...something that is outside of their purview or area of responsibility. Essentially you are saying that trump supporters lack integrity. That's a pretty big self-own right there.

It has nothing to do with integrity. Jury nullification has always been a part of our system.

Your polyana view of how closely juries follow the judge's instruction is setting yourself up for disappointment, if it ever comes to that.

Once again, you are suggesting that anyone who supports trump has no integrity or loyalty to the constitution. You are saying that you believe they would "go along" with a guilty verdict. That means they won't think or judge for themselves. They will leave a man's faith up to "however yall decide to vote". That means that you as a trump supporter would do and act the same way. You are saying the quiet part out load again.

No, it means exactly that they think or judge for themselves.

Are you seriously suggesting that every time a jury is deadlocked, that proves that one side or the other lacks integrity?

Really don't care what trump supporters try to do if he gets put in prison. In fact, I would welcome them to attempt another J6. It will be a considerably different outcome this time. Prison time or lead.

Sure, if they are unarmed and mostly peaceful, as the J6 protesters were. I don't know if the FBI would have agents and informants among them, this time. But we do know that the FBI will never tell us about them if they do.

 

[brandon]

Are you seriously suggesting that every time a jury is deadlocked, that proves that one side or the other lacks integrity?

No.

What we’re suggesting is that if the prosecution proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and a random trump supporter hangs the jury, that juror lacks integrity.

And because you seem to think your side is littered with said jurors who lack integrity, that means you, in fact, are the one who believes your side lacks integrity.

I actually happen to believe that most jurors, regardless of affiliation, who make it out of voir dire, will have the integrity to convict if the prosecution proves it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[DaveXA]

I think that many on here would agree with that second part, but not be as honest about it. To do so would admit to the true purpose of the indictment, and the past pseudo-investigations. I have called this "We'll STOP it 2.0" but in fact, it is more like Operation This Time We've Finally Got Him, with an iteration number well into the double digits.

Well, certainly Trump supporters will see it that way. I don't buy that at all.

It would also be admitting that Trump indeed has a reasonable chance of returning to the White House.

I'd say the odds are low, 30% at best. I suppose that could change as things get closer to the election. I tend to think he's not gonna be able to weasel his way out of his legal troubles and ultimately the GOP will have to make a choice. Ride with him to the finish and lose or take their chances with another candidate.

I would love to see Trump's lawyers float the idea of Trump agreeing to never running for office again in exchange for the charges being dropped or deferred so long as he doesn't just to see how quickly the Democrats would change their tune about crime and punishment.

Yeah, no, the prosecution will not settle for anything less than a guilty plea. Maybe drop some of the charges or whatever, but Trump getting off scot free is a non-starter imo.

But, I dunno. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Snarky Sack]

No.

What we’re suggesting is that if the prosecution proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and a random trump supporter hangs the jury, that juror lacks integrity.

So, no matter what the case, no matter unjust the prosecution, or the law, if the prosecutor proves that the defendants actions violated the law, only a lack of integrity would keep a juror from voting guilty?

And because you seem to think your side is littered with said jurors who lack integrity, that means you, in fact, are the one who believes your side lacks integrity.

I actually happen to believe that most jurors who actually make it out of voir dire will have the integrity to convict if the prosecution proves it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt.

What makes you say that?

Are they going to systematically exclude Trump supporters as people on this board have threatened to do?

 

[brandon]

So, no matter what the case, no matter unjust the prosecution, or the law, if the prosecutor proves that the defendants actions violated the law, only a lack of integrity would keep a juror from voting guilty?

No.

In this specific case, the only case we are discussing at this time, in the very narrow context of if a Trump supporter believes the prosecution has proven its case, and votes not to convict anyway, that would indicate a lack of integrity.

What makes you say that?

Are they going to systematically exclude Trump supporters as people on this board have threatened to do?

No. But they will exclude the ones they believe will do exactly what you’re suggesting.

Are you suggesting that every single Trump supporter would refuse to convict?

 

[Saintamaniac]

I think that many on here would agree with that second part, but not be as honest about it.

I disagree. I think many here want real jailtime. I would be completely surprised if trump would EVER stand up in court and admit he's guilty of the charges against him. He simply couldn't do it. It would be admitting to his supporters and you that he lied about everything. Of course the true believers would be saying that it wasn't really him admitting guilt. It was his body double. Then the true believers would say stuff like he's really still president and will pardon himself or some other insane nonsense that you guys are fond of claiming.

To do so would admit to the true purpose of the indictment, and the past pseudo-investigations.

I disagree. In fact, him taking a plea and admitting guilty would be him admitting he lied about everything so the investigations would become even more fact based.

It would also be admitting that Trump indeed has a reasonable chance of returning to the White House.

No one here has said he doesn't have a chance. In fact, it's a fear of many of us that the people who attempted the coup would learn from their mistakes and succeed in in installing trump as a dictator. End of our constitutional republic as we know it.

I would love to see Trump's lawyers float the idea of Trump agreeing to never running for office again in exchange for the charges being dropped or deferred so long as he doesn't just to see how quickly the Democrats would change their tune about crime and punishment.

This is extreme wishful thinking. Any agreement with trump will involve a guilty plea. Charges will not be dropped or deferred. If there is a deal, it will involve trump admitting guilt to avoid going to prison. No democrats will change their tune about crime and punishment. Most would probably be disappointed in not being able to see trump in handcuffs in prison. I know I would be.

 

[DaveXA]

So, no matter what the case, no matter unjust the prosecution, or the law, if the prosecutor proves that the defendants actions violated the law, only a lack of integrity would keep a juror from voting guilty?

If you're operating from the assumption that case is just, the prosecution presents a credible case proving that Trump did indeed break the law, then yes, only a lack of intetgrity would be what prevents a juror from voting guilty. You're operating from a starting point that presumes the opposite, which would result in 2 wildly differing opinions about the jury.

What makes you say that?

Are they going to systematically exclude Trump supporters as people on this board have threatened to do?

Who said that?

 

[MT15]

I want him to go to prison, myself, because he so richly deserves prison time for all of his crimes. If they need to construct a special cell in a separate facility just for him, that’s fine with me.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Your polyana view of how closely juries follow the judge's instruction

I served my country. I take the oath that I took seriously. I'm sorry you see it as being polyanish. You dishonor your sons with such a statement and they would be ashamed of you if they knew that's how you view the oath they took.

Are you seriously suggesting that every time a jury is deadlocked, that proves that one side or the other lacks integrity?

Why are you asking me this. I didn't say anything about a legitimately deadlocked jury. No, see we are talking about a jury with trump supporters willing to ignore clear evidence of guilt to hang a jury to protect a guilty man. We are talking about trump supporters who lack any sense of integrity.

Sure, if they are unarmed and mostly peaceful, as the J6 protesters were.

Complete and utter bullshirt and you know it. The world saw what happened on that January 6th.

 

[Snarky Sack]

No.

In this specific case, the only case we are discussing at this time, in the very narrow context of if a Trump supporter believes the prosecution has proven its case, and votes not to convict anyway, that would indicate a lack of integrity.

I disagree. A Trump supporter with integrity would see how unjust the prosecution was and use the principle of jury nullification to refuse to convict.

No. But they will exclude the ones they believe will do exactly what you’re suggesting.

Are you suggesting that every single Trump supporter would refuse to convict?

In the hypothetical posed in which the prosecution proves each and every count it alleges, with no evidence to counter it from the Trump side, I believe that some Trump supporters would vote to convict having believed the judge's attempt to nullify the idea of nullification (if she does) through her jury instructions. Doesn't mean the ones who decide on jury nullification will therefore have no integrity, as I assume your "no" above affirms.

There are indeed cases in which jury nullification is the only way for a person to maintain their integrity.

To avoid confusion, I will now depart from the counter-factual hypothetical in which the prosecution proves its case entirely and Trump is unable to show any flaws in the prosecution's case. It was a good question, and I answered it. But I don't want my willingness to answer a hypothetical to be taken as admitting that that is how the case will go, and I think some of the other posters are starting to do that.

In the real world, in which the defense will heavily cross-examine each and every witness the prosecution brings, and will present witnesses of their own, likely including Trump himself, there will be plenty of reasonable doubt for any Trump supporter to hang their hat on when trying to persuade other jurors.

 

[Snarky Sack]

If you're operating from the assumption that case is just, the prosecution presents a credible case proving that Trump did indeed break the law, then yes, only a lack of intetgrity would be what prevents a juror from voting guilty. You're operating from a starting point that presumes the opposite, which would result in 2 wildly differing opinions about the jury.

Are you willing to answer a hypothetical question?

Who said that?

Not going to call anyone out. If they want to, they can raise their hand.

Actually, if you look at your post right under that question, they may have already.