Donald Trump Found Guilty on All 34 Counts
Official portrait of President Donald J. Trump, Friday, October 6, 2017. (Official White House photo by Shealah Craighead)
CNN:
JUST IN: A Manhattan jury found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records he faced in his New York hush money criminal trial.
Trump is the first president in US history to be convicted of a felony.
Prosecutors accused Trump of taking part in an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the 2016 election and an unlawful plan to suppress negative information, which included concealing a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
1. I am going to consider buying some nice champagne;
2. Rule 34 obtained a new meaning today;
3. As a convicted felon and Florida Resident, Trump cannot vote for himself for President;
4. Trump already had a press conference which went as well as you can expect and he committed defamation per se against the Judge
5. Guilty guilty guilty the MoFo is guilty.Report
I bought a nicer-than-usual box of wine earlier this afternoon. The nominal reason was that I kept all three granddaughters this morning. We went to the park. The two-year-old believes without doubt that she can climb anything her older sisters can. That may well be true, if she’s given sufficient time. It doesn’t mean she can get down by herself, so sometimes I have to climb up and fetch her. Including once when I had gotten a good grip on her lower leg and she… just… let… go. And hung there giggling. Giggled the entire time I had to lift her out of the climbing stuff by the leg at arm’s length, while she was ten feet off the ground, on a merry-go-round sort of thing that wanted to move.
OTOH, I have the box and no responsibilities this evening and Trump is a convicted felon.Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6MReport
Interesting times. Of all the cases for it to be, of course, it ended up being this one. Still, this is clearly terrible news for Biden /s.Report
This is just the first one. This was also the weakest one.Report
Yes, but the unbelievable arrogance and foolishness of the DA in the Georgia case and the mind blowingly stupidity and corruption of the Trump appointed Federal Judge in the classified documents case (by far the strongest of the three) has put both of the stronger cases outcomes past the election. So here we are.Report
Yeah. It’s crazy making that he has flooded the system with crime and Fani in GA dropped the ball.Report
I have a lot of things to say about Fani Willis and none of them are good, and not a single one of them exonerates the obviously guilty Trump.
“All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, that you’ve recalculated.”
“Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong.”
Had Fani Willis found someone other than her boyfriend to consult on the state RICO law, we’d have been looking at a pre-election trial on direct and personal election interference felony from 2020.Report
Yeah the entitlement of that was just gobsmacking and so infuriating.Report
couldn’t’a happened to a nicer guy, and I DO mean that literallyReport
Glyph!!!!!Report
It’s nice to see you in fine spirits, Saul.Report
Hi Glyph!Report
Hiya North!Report
Hey, how ya doin’ dude?Report
You know that meme from Simpsons with Moe 86’ing Barney from the bar and dusting his palms, only to have Barney appear behind him again?
Ask me again in November.Report
I would say he could’ve avoided all of his legal case woes by following one rule, but it’s far too late for ‘stop criming’ to be of assistance.Report
Trump’s comments after the verdict were just pathetic. Even in the shady business of politics it’s hard for me to think of anyone who so consistently never takes responsibility for anything, ever.Report
Oh my gosh, we should have had a prediction thread on this…
Anyway, (deep breath)
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
(wheeze)
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
This is going to be a funny summer.Report
I think we’re about to learn how many people think of Trump in an entirely symbolic way and don’t actually care about him as a person even a little bit.Report
Since that’s how he reacts to other humans I’d say its entirely appropriate for people to do things that way.Report
I mean there’re basically five possible electoral outcomes I’d list them in order of likelihood:
1: this slightly helps Biden
2: No effect on the election
3: this greatly helps Biden
4: This slightly helps Trump
5: This greatly helps Trump.
I’d say it’s like 45%/45%/9% odds of 1, 2 and 3 with options 4 and 5 somehow dividing that last 1% between them.Report
I agree about #1.
But I also put that into my “second order effects” machine and I see a bunch of people screaming that it should be #3. And the response of it *NOT* being #3 by these people who are dismayed at it being a #1 (or, god forbid, #2) is where the comedy starts to leak in through the cracks.Report
A trial and conviction in Georgia or on the January 6th related charges would get #3. Not this conviction mind you.Report
Phil, seriously. I wonder if you’re not trying to help me make my points.
But, in the short term, my thoughts are about what happens at sentencing more than at the other trials.
34 Felony counts? That *DEMANDS* jail. Without jail for 34 Felony counts, that pretty much admits that the point was the conviction more than the punishment.Report
I know you aren’t used to me agreeing with you, but try to keep up.Report
Okay.
Do you tend to agree that this trial isn’t a slam dunk, then? Your hopes are on the other two trials?
(I will put together a prediction thread next week.)Report
Its not a political slam dunk event. But it’s another important data point if you care to pay attention.Report
It is definitely not a #3, I agree with you there.Report
Also, a conviction on Jan 6th charges would put the 14th amendment into actual legal play, not just the imaginary play that people seem to think it was. It’s really not now, you can’t just handwave at some stuff and claim Trump violated it. But an actual conviction for something that can be legally argued to be ‘rebellion or insurrection’ does indeed mean Trump is ineligable to be president. I don’t think we’re due one to finish one of those trials by the election, though?
Although, technically, it doesn’t say ‘someone who has been guilty’, which means the pardon power should not, in fact, fix that. (Also, how to fix this ineligibility is laid out in the amendment itself, if the writers wanted pardon power to fix it, they would have said so. They instead said Congress had to fix it.) So the obvious loophole of Trump pardoning himself (Assuming he can even do that.) doesn’t fix his ineligibility.
Which means that if the courts find him guilty _while in office_, he must removed on the grounds he is no longer eligable to be president, as he is ineligable unless both houses of Congress say otherwise. And…the timing doesn’t work to undo that…if he’s removed due to legal ineligibility to be president, he doesn’t get back into office if Congress says ‘No, we want him to be eligable’. He could _run again_, but it doesn’t undo his removal, which, legally, happened as soon as he was found guilt of a crime that consisted of rebellion or insurrection. Congress could fix this by pre-emptively forgiving his rebellion, though.
Not sure who would be in charge of removing him or deciding this, though.
It is an actual interesting legal question as to what happens if the President is supposed to be serving a sentence in a state prison during his term, though. I have a feeling we’d stupidly have judges trying to make accommodations for him, defer his sentence or something, like the President deserves to be given slack for some reason.
Instead of realizing that the president holds the highest office and thus should probably be held to a _higher_ standard then normal people who _also_ cannot do their jobs while in prison, but no one seems to care abut that.
We also run into the interesting legal question of what happens if such a president who is held in prison refuses to actually use the 25th to cede power to the VP and tries to fight it. The 25th doesn’t really consider that the ‘inability to discharge the powers and duties of his office’ might be due to _prison_, a fact that could mean he might also be unable to ‘notify Congress’ in a timely manner of the claim that he is not unable. (OTOH, if he is in a situation where he cannot notify Congress of things, he is probably _objectively_ unable to be president! Part of his job is notifying Congress of things! Not just signed bills, but the state of the union. So that logically works fine.)Report
I mean, yeah, if you just are focused on the caviling of the highly politically engaged and fanatically leftist set then you’ll get entertainment and comedy in spades. In terms of practical effect, however, it’s a non-issue because it’s not like people outraged it’s #1 instead of #3 will fail to vote or vote for biden so in terms of substantive outcomes their outrage is irrelevant.Report
To the extent that the highly politically engaged are responsible for setting the terms of the discussion, that’s what makes this volatile.
The Israel/Palestine thing will continue throughout the summer, for example. The news cycles will need to get faster and faster. There’s sentencing and, as Phil points out, there are several trials coming at Trump.
#1 (or, God forbid, #2) will result in the highly politically engaged responding the way that they do.Report
Of the engaged people to watch I think the Nikki Haley supporters are probably more important than the online left PMC types. She of course bent the knee, but that’s because even before she was an anachronism she was, as the kids say these days, pretty mid. The question is what those people still floating around that joined the party of Reagan want to do with this. Obviously they are a dying subspecies but they aren’t dead yet and what Trump can least afford are quiet abstentions within GOP ranks. It wouldn’t take many to change the outcome.Report
I suspect you may be wrong about Israel/Palestine. The kids at the college protests have gone home. I am sure the chattering set will continue to chatter about it; likewise Lee will continue to gaze into that abyss and thus get enraged but in the wider discourse I suspect it’ll die down. The discourse gets bored quickly and I suspect that Bibi will continue to not quite starve the Gazans and will run out of obvious Hamas sites to hit.Report
Oooh, speak of the Devil. Maybe Biden will get a peace process going.
If he pulls that off, it’s a lock (for Biden, I mean).Report
Absent some very major new incident or outrage in September or after I will be shocked if student activism about Israel is still on the radar.Report
Agreed. It’s one thing to kick up your heels and have some luls or walk around people doing the same on the eve of summer- it’s a whole ‘nother ball of wax at the start of a new semester. These kids have mastery of the universe to prepare for.Report
Given that my assumption is that the students camping in the quad has a lot more to do with “students camping in the quad” than anything having to do with either Israel or Palestine, my expectation is that they’ll be back.Report
Camping on the quad in spring at the end of the semester when, likely, your grade is determined and your classwork is generally wrapped up is one thing, Jay. Camping on the quad at the beginning of the semester when your grade is entirely theoretical and there’s much work to be done to determine it is an entirely different beast.Report
This makes assumptions about the time horizons of the college students that I am not entirely sure are justified.Report
We’ll see in the fall Jay; though I’d not expect you to be assuming selfless virtue on the part of this crowd. You really are a romantic at heart!Report
When I try to remember being 20, I immediately think about chicks.
And, yeah… Camping on the quad is probably a better way to get chicks than the crap that I was doing at 20.Report
I think it helps Biden and the Democrats a lot. Maybe not “greatly” but more than slightly. Significantly perhaps. The GOP is beclowning themselves and Trump can’t keep his rants and raves to Truth Social for this one and his rants and raves do not exactly help with sentencing coming up. It isn’t exactly contrition.Report
I hope to God(ess?) you’re right Saul and putting your marker on the 9% spot is not terrible. I, alas, am putting my marker on the #1 spot and consider myself an optimist for doing so.Report
I am curious about how the judge handles it. Among the (many) reasons attorneys advise clients not to behave the way Trump has is that chances are they will end up at the judge’s mercy. I know that experts have said it would be very unusual for a first time offender to get any time for these crimes but most first time offenders also aren’t verbally attacking the judge and the judge’s family and violating court orders. If Trump is sent to sh*t it off on Rikers for 30 days or even a week or 2 I think this becomes much bigger.Report
I think the judge would be wise to avoid jail time because it’d eliminate the jail implications from consideration for the appeals courts and reduce the odds of the verdict being overturned.Report
A pinko co-worker pointed out to me yesterday that Secret Service protection for former presidents (and others) is offered as a courtesy. It could be withdrawn at any point! “Biden should revoke Secret Service protection when Trump goes to jail”, he said triumphantly.
I smiled and nodded.Report
Fortunately the old man knows better than to touch that idea with a hundred foot pole.Report
This is 34 Felony convictions.
What is the minimum jail time would you feel would be appropriate?Report
The prison sentence seems to be 1.5 to 4 years. I’m fine with him getting 1.5Report
Added bonus, no State of the Union speech!Report
Because of course they do:
Trump supporters try to doxx jurors and post violent threats after his conviction
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-supporters-try-doxx-jurors-violent-threats-conviction-rcna154882
“War,” read a Telegram post from one chapter of the Proud Boys, the far-right group whose former chair and three other members were convicted of seditious conspiracy because of their actions at the Capitol on Jan. 6, just a few months after Trump infamously told the group to “stand back and stand by“ during a 2020 debate.
“Now you understand. To save your nation, you must fight. The time to respond is now. Franco Friday has begun,” another Proud Boys chapter wrote, apparently referring to fascist dictator Francisco Franco of Spain.
One Jan. 6 defendant who already served time in prison for his role in the Capitol attack also weighed in on X, posting a photo of Bragg and a photo of a noose. “January 20, 2025 traitors Get The Rope,” he wrote, referring to the date of the next presidential inauguration.
But don’t call them “Deplorable”.Report
Who do they think they are? The media?
Report
It must be exhausting- this compulsion, upon hearing any negative story about Trumpists, to immediately have to scour the internet in a desperate search for equivalence.
Its OK to say that Trumpists are worse than liberals. Really, you can just say it, out loud and everything. The world will continue to turn, the sky will not fall everything will be alright.Report
I’m merely noting that the game is iterated and the wide-eyed amazement that new precedents are being set is based in an inability to remember anything from more than five minutes ago.Report
Your own link refutes this.Report
It refutes the doxxing of jurors? My goodness. That’s crazy.Report
Your position here assumes several things:
Side 1 did something because Side B did it.
Side 1 knows everything Side B does.
What your “position” here complete lacks:
An actual position.
Do you think what the people Chip discussed did was wrong? Why or why not?
Do you think what the people you discussed did was wrong? Why or why not?
This is how conversations happen.
You seem to think this website is Twitter.
It… is not.Report
Do you think what the people Chip discussed did was wrong? Why or why not?
You mean, like, morally?
I think that it will result in poorer outcomes for me and mine and for us as a society, yes.
Do you think what the people you discussed did was wrong? Why or why not?
You mean, like, morally?
I think that it has resulted in poorer outcomes for me and mine and for us as a society, yes.Report
So when someone says, “Look at these people doing things that will result in poorer outcomes for you and yours and us as a society!” why is your immediate response, “Look over here at these other people doing things that will result in poorer outcomes for me and mine and us as a society”?Report
Because I am looking at this as an iterated game.
“Here is an event.”
“The event you are pointing to was preceded by a similar event.”
“WHATABOUTISM!”Report
This applies also to the Simchat Torah massacre.
And the campus occupations.
And the George Floyd riots.
And the 9-11 attacks.
And Pearl Harbor.
And the invasion of Poland.
And the firing on Fort Sumter.
And my brother hitting me after I kept copying him when we were children.
You’re trying to make this sound like some profound observation but it is literally just “Mom, he did it first!”
But even here, your very own link refutes the charge.
There is no plausible similarity between your link and the call for violence against the Trump voters.
But before you respond, lets try a test.
Does anyone here, other than Jaybird, believe that what happened in his link is comparable to Trump supporters calling for the violent persecution of the jurors?Report
Yes, Chip. It does. Absolutely.
It’s why I say stuff like “game this out… where do you think it will end up?” and then say stuff like “divorce or war”.
It’s why I complain about moving from a relatively higher trust/collaboration zone to a relatively lower trust/collaboration zone.
Because the game is iterated.
Does anyone here, other than Jaybird, believe that what happened in his link is comparable to Trump supporters calling for the violent persecution of the jurors?
Do I believe that someone saying a thing is comparable to someone doing a thing?
Depends.
I would say that doxxing a juror makes violence possible. As such, I put “attempts to dox a juror” in the “problematic” box.
Do you think that attempts to dox the New York jurors would be a bad thing?
I do, for what it’s worth. Because there are crazy people out there who will want to engage in violence on behalf of their side.Report
Tossing around game theory jargon is no substitute for actually gaming things out. But it has the advantage of sounding deep instead of working it through and coming up with something either banal or ugly.Report
Does it help with predictions? If it helps with predictions, it’s at least useful.
Even if it’s not good for signaling group membership (something else that is also useful).Report
But even in game theory terms, Jay, your argument fails. The game is iterated. Ok. But if the GOP does this stuff and has no fear of retaliation then they do it more. If your point is that the game is iterated then, in game theory, that would call for defecting more until a new equilibrium is reached. Especially in the case of the moderate left where public opinion is overwhelmingly in its favor (as contrasted to the right which is at a notable disadvantage or the far left or far right which are wildly unpopular).
So if the game is iterated then the strategic/logical response is to “defect”.
Likewise when you talk about moving from a high trust society to a low trust one, for many of the groups you’re talking about the past society was not high trust, it was a boot on the face. The society we’re moving to is more trusting than the one in the past.
And, specifically to the example you put up, it’s interesting that you are lumping main stream media actors doing their main stream media thing with the opposite side to Trump and the right. It’s like the Covington bruhaha all over again.Report
So if the game is iterated then the strategic/logical response is to “defect”.
Yes. It absolutely is.
And, specifically to the example you put up, it’s interesting that you are lumping main stream media actors doing their main stream media thing with the opposite side to Trump and the right. It’s like the Covington bruhaha all over again.
Yeah, it’s a lot like the Covington thing. I hadn’t thought that but now that you point it out… yeah.Report
Can’t tell if it helps unless you do the work.Report
You’re pretty much stuck with measurables, unfortunately. If you give extra weight to intangibles… well, anything is possible.Report
Who is this game theory person who is stuck with measurables? What measurables have been gamed out? By whom?Report
Are we still talking about “doing the work” at this point?
Because if you want to discuss the theory, I can just link to the wikipedia page.Report
So you’re not going to do the work of actually gaming things out: you’re just going to refer to general theory? That’s not something Wikipedia can tell us.Report
No, I’m asking what you want. Do you want X or do you want Y?
I’m hoping to avoid a situation where you ask for X and I give you X and then you start complaining that I didn’t give you Y.Report
I don’t want anything except that when you throw game theory jargon around you actually game things out. Show the work.
Or not throw game theory jargon around if you aren’t going to do the work.
Either one will do.Report
So when I talk about any given defection in an iterated game, is it “doing the work” to point out a previous defection?Report
The task defines the work.Report
I prefer to know where the goalposts are prior to making the kick. Barring that, I’d like to know where they were after the ball stops moving.
The worst case scenario is someone just yelling “yeah, you missed” without telling me where they are at all. I mean… maybe they don’t even exist, you know?Report
Here’s a goalpost:
Trumpists are calling for violence against the jurors.
Find a comparable action by Biden supporters.
So far you’ve missed.Report
You mean something like “calls for Trump to be assassinated”? I’m sure you must not mean that because you know that those have happened and you’ll say something like “those were just some random nutjobs” as if you didn’t ask me for some examples of random nutjobs to offset your examples of random nutjobs.Report
Sure lets stick with that goalpost.
Lets compare the death threats against Trump and Biden.
Are there a comparable number of them?
Coming from comparable levels of sources?
Do Biden and Trump treat their deranged supporters in comparable ways?
Do they use comparable levels of violent rhetoric?
Lets focus on this goalpost and do a side by side comparison.Report
There was an “#AssassinateTrump” hashtag on twitter.
It trended.Report
Here’s an idea. When you make a grand pronouncement about the game-theoretical aspects of a situation, go through the iterated steps and explain why you think step 1 leads to step 2 and so on. Work through the game. Don’t just throw jargon around. Unless the jargon is the point.Report
Why I think a defection would be followed by a similar defection?
What level of detail are you looking for?
Will I have to do math? I don’t want to have to do math.Report
Do the math.Report
Will you guys do math, if requested?Report
If we’re claiming something that requires it.Report
And you’ll be the judge of what requires math?Report
In the first instance. If anyone thinks otherwise they can say so and explain why. Who knows? They might be right. I don’t ask for guarantees up front.Report
For it to be an iterated game you need to show a link between the two events.
Can you do that?Report
Between the calls/attempts to dox the members of the jury?Report
Already addressed that.Report
His position is BSDI. He’s not wrong but Trump and his people do it pretty consistently.Report
Eh, it’s more that there’s no incentives for both sides *NOT* to do it.
(And I kinda wish there were.)Report
There is no incentive for Trumpists not to call for the murder of their political opponents?
If a six year old made this argument about teasing his sister, he would be scolded like a foolish child.Report
Hey, do we have any lawyers on the board?
Do we have any professional opinions on the case? I don’t mean a “Yay! Go Broncos!” opinion but more of a “Bo Nix had this QB rating, and Russell Wilson had that QB rating and that means that the following outcomes are likely, assuming everybody stays healthy…” kind of opinion.
I mean, I know that it’s not possible to give a dispassionate opinion. Everybody has a hidden agenda. Especially people on the opposing team.
But do we have a professional opinion on the case?Report
The prosecution put in a case normally good enough to win. The defense made unforced errors, probably at the insistence of the client. The judge conducted the trial fairly. (There was a bit too much Stormy stuff, but one of the unforced errors opened the door to the sex stuff in general and the judge sustained defense objections when it went too far while wondering why they didn’t object more. So no grounds for appeal there.) The jury was entitled to believe whom they chose, and believed enough of the prosecution evidence to convict. They could have come out the other way, but with the evidence they were given, guilty was the most likely verdict.Report
CNN’s legal analyst is giving a different argument on CNN. This sort of thing isn’t helping.
The media, for some reason, is muddying the clear waters.
Report
One legal analyst on CNN isn’t “the media.”
Helping who or what?
Ask 100 people, you’ll get 100 answers.
Question: Did you plan to post that Tweet before asking your question?Report
If I’m reading the post times right, it hadn’t been tweeted yet.Report
It hadn’t been tweeted yet when I wrote my original comment, no.
“Ask 100 people, you’ll get 100 answers.”
This is why it’s important to ask legal eagle types.
I mean, if you ask someone who isn’t a legal eagle, you might just get someone who is rooting for his own team.
A lawyer, by contrast, might see “the law” or “the entire system” as “his (or her) team” and argue from that perspective one that mere civilians like you or I don’t have available to us.Report
The quotes in the tweet do not actually seem to be in the clip. However from the minute or so included the criticism is about the jury instructions, and specifically that they do not say what crime was being covered up by falsifying the documents (whether that be tax fraud or violation or campaign finance laws). The jury instructions are available here:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/05/30/read-the-jury-instructions-trump-criminal-hush-money-trial/73905370007/
It’s certainly possible that there was an error in the instructions but even if that’s the case I’m not sure it’s an indictment of the system. If I am reading correctly Trump’s lawyers objected which should preserve the issue for appeal. The analysis strikes me as pretty grossly disproportionate to the actual issue, but that’s cable news for you.Report
That is probably the best shot. It doesn’t sound like much to me, but I’d be interested in what New York criminal lawyers have to say.Report
I would be curious to know what the case law says. But not so curious as to take time out of my personal life to research it.Report
The quotes are from the New York Magazine piece, I guess.Report
I see, I hadn’t opened it correctly, but yes, looks like a mix of quotes from both the essay and the CNN discussion. It’s entirely possible there are issues for appeal in the case. Just keep in mind that could be said for many, many prosecutions. Maybe this argument about the jury instructions or applicability of the statute will lead to a victory of some kind on appeal for Trump. But also maybe not. Maybe it’s just a really broad, but sound statute a very high profile person was rightly identified as violating, and there was no error meriting a new trial or some other remedy.
So here’s my question- if it’s the latter, will the people who believe Trump has been railroaded change their minds in light of new developments? Or is this an entirely outcome based thing, where it’s only legitimate if it is in Trump’s favor?Report
Like, imagine there are four types of lawyers: Competent and ethical, incompetent and ethical, competent and unethical, and incompetent and unethical. Right?
So, the incompetent and unethical ones almost immediately end up in legal trouble, because Trump asks them to do something illegal and they just…do it. (Hey, where is Rudy anyway? Or Sidney Powell? She been arrested yet?)
The competent and unethical ones _eventually_ end up in legal trouble, or start to understand there is so much risk at the illegal stuff they walk away…or flip. (Hi Cohen.)
The competent and ethical ones care about their reputation, so flatly refuse to do the illegal things, and drop him almost immediately when he starts demanding they do stupid things that will lose the case. (Way too many to list. A good chunk of his legal team quite before his Senate impeachment trial, for example.)
Leaving the incompetent but ethical ones. They’re like ‘Well, I’ll keep working for him until he fires me for not doing some illegal thing he’s demanding. We’ll probably lose the case because of his meddling, but who cares, that’s technically what I’m supposed to do as a lawyer so no one can sue me for it as long as I make sure to document all his dumbass requests. And the money is good…but we’re gonna need to be paid up front.’
Yup. Incompetent but ethical.Report