TRUMP IS GUILTY ON ALL 34 COUNTS IN NEW YORK! Thoughts?

[abc3643]

He was just convicted of 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records.

Today, Thursday, 30 MAY 2024, is a history-making day!

Lock him up!

Updates

1 mo

SECTION 175.10
Falsifying business records in the first degree

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

Updates

1 mo

The statute I cited can be found here:
www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10

The penalty for Class E felonies is discussed here.
www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/70.00

[Bricealan]

@abc3643 What an simpleton you are sir. How could you could possibly post such a comment and photo as that? It does't surprise me, you being 61, I would think you would have more sense of propriety? You should be ashamed of yourself to show that kind of child- like ignorance, and arrogance

[abc3643]

I'll cut you some slack. What "propriety" do I need though? And, before you attack me, maybe you ought to reassess the "propriety" of your Orange God - he who, with the utmost amount of "propriety", likes to "grab 'em by the pussy". Maybe your ability to judge "propriety" needs a bit of calibration.

[AviatorTom]

He's due for sentencing just one week before the Republican Convention. I wonder what will happen there.

But don't worry... there will be an appeal. It's very rare in any trial for someone to be convicted by jury on all counts, and 34 is a lot of counts.

[AviatorTom]

And before anyone says he could win the election and then pardon himself... that cannot happen. He is being convicted in state court, and only the Governor of New York could pardon him.

Here's an interesting thought. What if Trump picks Kathy Hochul as his VP. on the condition that she pardons him? Hmmm... that would be interesting. 🙉🙊🙈

[abc3643]

Yeah, that's the big thing. It is conceivable that Trump be taken into custody at the sentencing and thus not be able to attend the Republican Convention.

34 is a lot of counts, but all it is is really the same goddamn thing 34 times.
He should have just paid in cash out of his personal money and none of this would have happened.

[Chazmatazz269]

Ell oh ell! You aren’t going to be as happy with the end results of this nonsense as you think you are.

[OtterMan68]

Most legal experts I've heard predicted he would be found guilty on some or most counts.
Trump will rant about this then beg people to pay his legal bills for him.

[Bricealan]

@OtterMan68 ... and yet another leftist... pinko communist

[OtterMan68]

@Bricealan "Insults are the arguments employed by those in the wrong." JJ Rousseau

[Jennz6]

Can he still be President and pardon himself

[Still-alive]

He can't because its state not federal.

[abc3643]

Can he be President? Possibly.
Can he pardon himself?
Even if this was a Federal crime, the answer is "No", but this is a state crime and Presidential pardoning power only applies to Federal crimes.

[Still-alive]

he can pardon himself from the dc cases. specifically the documents case and jan 6th one. But he can't from this or the one in georgia

[abc3643]

@Still-alive No, he can't (realistically).

While that is not settled law, self-pardoning would not be deemed a presidential power. If it was, then President Richard Nixon would have used it on himself 50 years ago. Instead, Nixon lost by a unanimous 9-0 SCOTUS case United States v. Richard Nixon in late July 1974 which held that the President is not above the law. That's what led to Nixon resigning instead of attempting to pardon himself. (Ford did it instead shortly after Nixon resigned.)

We'll actually know more about this possibility when the SCOTUS rules in Trump v. United States next month. Trump's case is not about self-pardoning, but is similar. As described by SCOTUSblog and likely official briefs:

Issue: Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

www.scotusblog.com/.../

[goaded]

@Still-alive That's still debatable, but with the Roberts supreme court of partisan hacks, who knows? It needs a constitutional amendment: POTUS shall not provide pardons that they benefit from, other than as a result of a popular correction of a miscarriage of justice.

[Still-alive]

well all ill say is it won't stop him from trying anyways and he also has his favorable scotus to back him too.

[abc3643]

@Still-alive No, his "favorable SCOTUS" hasn't been very favorable to him - it's already ruled against him in other cases. Trump v. United States is likely to make that clear too. I heard the oral argument and his appointees were not sympathetic to his case.

[Still-alive]

look im not arguing. im just saying Trumps gonna do anything and everything to escape justice and accountability like he always does. and i would not be surprised if SCOTUS allows him. call it pessimism or whatever but thats how i feel.

Now if Trump is actually sentenced to prison time THEN ill definitely believe you that Trump is cooked no matter what. until then.. ill just celebrate the conviction at least. hopefully it means lower poll numbers at the very least.

[goaded]

@abc3643 His favorable SCOTUS is seriously considering the idea that a president is immune from prosecution for anything they do as president. And by doing so, pushing an open and shut trial that should take about a week until after the election (with the aid of Trump appointed Judge "loose" Cannon).

Seriously, how hard would it be to find a judge that didn't owe their position to the defendant to oversee a trial? Even if they felt, hell, if they knew they could be impartial (and I don't doubt that the vast majority could), avoiding the impression of partiality should surely require recusal.

[Bricealan]

@goaded Oh... now, it "the Roberts Supreme Court partisan hacks"?

Oh forget making any reply to your absurd comment.

[goaded]

@Bricealan Yes, when you've got five of the six Republican justices confirmed with fewer than 60 votes in the Senate, at least two taking bribes from rich "friends" and one flying insurrectionist flags not just once, but twice, and even considering the question of whether a president should have total immunity from the law while they're in office, it's a dangerously partisan court.

Fascist dictatorships regularly start by twisting the laws in their favour.

[butterly248]

Best news, now more former presidents on trial :)

[Bricealan]

@butterly248 Yes... go back and try Bill Clinton for lying to Congress..."I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, now I have to go back to working for the American people"

[abc3643]

@Bricealan Apparently, you are history-impaired which doesn't surprise me.
Clinton didn't "lie to Congress" because he was never in front of Congress. What he did do is lie under oath when he was required to provide testimony in the Paula Jones case (Clinton v. Jones). That's perjury and justified his impeachment. He wasn't convicted in the Senate because, frankly, a good number of those Senators probably fucked around and would have done the same thing (not admit to an affair).

[abc3643]

@butterly248
Well, yes and no. Trump was convicted on actions he died BEFORE he was President and for private actions he did while President in connection with those former actions. Had Trump never been President, the facts in this case would pretty much be the same; Trump paid hush-money but masked it as business expenses. That's a felony right there (Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree), but, as came out in the trial, the primary purpose of this was to not adversely affect his chances during the election. These actions would be illegal in New York (and Trump may still be charged with that), and that's what elevated this crime to Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree. The fact that he did win the Presidency is irrelevant to these crimes.

[DarkWinterNights]

I’m sure can get Obama on warcrimes for drone striking children, including an American citizen. GW Bush as well. It’s a bummer we can’t expand this to all of congress. We could probably charge 99% of them.

[abc3643]

@DarkWinterNights What "drone striking children" is that?

Meanwhile, grow up.
If you feel that much guilt, leave the United States. After all, our "not-a-drone" strike on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and DID kill thousands of children. Same with our firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden.

As for killing an American citizen who was fighting against the US? That's irrelevant. Enemy combatant.

[robocop666]

They will do anything to silence him

[abc3643]

"They" was 12 randomly selected jurors. Jurors who were APPROVED by Trump and his legal team during the voir dire process at the beginning of the trial.

[Chazmatazz269]

That’s a wholly disingenuous assertion of jury selection. Both teams get a limited number of questions and unilateral dismissals. Drumpf and his team didn’t “approve” of the jury. They did the best they could with what they had. Considering the venue, there was no way on earth he could get a fair trial in New York, and the democrats knew it from the start. They played smart and they won.
But anyone, including OP, who claims to be happy about this result is just a hypocrite and a fascist. The justice system only seems to “work” when they’re in favor of the result. Otherwise it’s “there is no justice”, “the whole system is broken”, “defund the police”, “tear it all down and start over”. Ell oh ell! At least in this space, we can know perfectly well who the assholes are. Every hypocritical and deceitful thing they’ve ever posted stays right where they left it.

[abc3643]

@Chazmatazz269 absolutely he got a fair trial. In fact they were pro Trump jurors on that jury.

[robocop666]

was the Judge selected by Obama?

[Still-alive]

Get REKT you Trump tards. we're so back!