News Trump: Mar-a-Lago just raided by FBI

[fskimospy]

Because Trump's associates are not Trump and everyone knows that they are the designated scape goats.

So to be clear you're saying the jurors in these other cases were Trump supporters who only voted to convict because they thought they had permission of some sort to do so? This is a remarkable claim - is there any evidence for it?

Yes, and with ease. They will probably find several, likely assisted by the judge.

Can you explain the process by which this will happen? How are they finding so many out of such a small pool, why is the prosecution not striking them, why is the judge choosing to assist the defense, and how are they going to assist them?

I don't mean you need to spell the process out exactly, but broad strokes would be illuminating.

Nope, the safe money is still on the same idea. Trump will not be indicted because it is almost certainly more trouble then it is worth to do so (to the politicians that make these decisions), mostly because the odds of getting a conviction is so unsure. You don't start the fight if you are not sure you can finish it.

Okay I'm going to save this post. When Trump is indicted you will come back and admit you were wrong?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

You don't start the fight if you are not sure you can finish it.

What? That's not fighting, that's bullying. The outcome of a fight is always in doubt. Ask Buster Douglas or Putin. And the old saying in response to someone picking a fight with you is "You start the fight, I'll finish it."

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So to be clear you're saying the jurors in these other cases were Trump supporters who only voted to convict because they thought they had permission of some sort to do so? This is a remarkable claim - is there any evidence for it?


Can you explain the process by which this will happen? How are they finding so many out of such a small pool, why is the prosecution not striking them, why is the judge choosing to assist the defense, and how are they going to assist them?

I don't mean you need to spell the process out exactly, but broad strokes would be illuminating.


Okay I'm going to save this post. When Trump is indicted you will come back and admit you were wrong?

Please save mine, I do require indicted & convicted. Plea bargains don’t count we both win in that event.

 

[fskimospy]

Please save mine, I do require indicted & convicted. Plea bargains don’t count we both win in that event.

I will save yours too but a plea deal counts as me winning as a plea deal will involve Trump pleading guilty to one or more crimes, which is legally a conviction.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So to be clear you're saying the jurors in these other cases were Trump supporters who only voted to convict because they thought they had permission of some sort to do so? This is a remarkable claim - is there any evidence for it?

No, I'm saying they are not Trump and no one cares about them. You don't protect the scape goat. No real political power was used to get them out of their problems.

I don't mean you need to spell the process out exactly, but broad strokes would be illuminating.

May I point you to basically every other court case that Trump is a part of. Some how, no matter how bad it looks for Trump he manages to be given everything he asks for.

Okay I'm going to save this post. When Trump is indicted you will come back and admit you were wrong?

Of course. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I actually hope I am wrong here.

But, you have been saying that he is going to be indicted for various things as soon as he is no longer President for 4 years now. So many slam dunk cases that he will surly be indicted for! Most of those things we no longer even remember, much less are being investigated. When are you going to admit that you are wrong?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I will save yours too but a plea deal counts as me winning as a plea deal will involve Trump pleading guilty to one or more crimes, which is legally a conviction.

Okay time frame is it has to happen within three years.

 

[soundforbjt]

Please save mine as I require a real punishment that anyone else would get.

 

[Pens1566]

~40% he gets indicted for a non-process crime
< 5% chance he gets convicted
~0% he ever serves time

 

[fskimospy]

Okay time frame is it has to happen within three years.

Sure - if it doesn't happen within the next three years it's very unlikely to ever happen. Really I expect him to be indicted by the end of the year or shortly thereafter.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I'm saying they are not Trump and no one cares about them. You don't protect the scape goat. No real political power was used to get them out of their problems.

Ok, so your argument is that Trump supporters in America are comfortable convicting his friends and associates but would not vote to convict Trump under any circumstances? I guess there's no way to prove or disprove that but to put it mildly I find that unlikely.

May I point you to basically every other court case that Trump is a part of. Some how, no matter how bad it looks for Trump he manages to be given everything he asks for.

So your basis for this is nothing other than a gut feeling. I'm just trying to understand a broad outline of how Trump gets everything he asks for, in this case a favorable jury assisted by a federal judge. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask you to explain how you think that's going to happen.

Of course. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I actually hope I am wrong here.

But, you have been saying that he is going to be indicted for various things as soon as he is no longer President for 4 years now. So many slam dunk cases that he will surly be indicted for! Most of those things we no longer even remember, much less are being investigated. When are you going to admit that you are wrong?

If Trump does not end up getting indicted I will be happy to admit I'm wrong. I'm very confident in my position though.

This isn't the result of some complex political analysis, it's straightforward. Trump was caught red handed in a case that's easy to win a conviction on and the DOJ faces enormous political pressure to do it. I frankly struggle to understand how people do not see what is obviously coming.

 

[ImpulsE69]

It’s hard for me to understand why you would say the article is hearsay?

Because the article specifically says multiple times that this was stated by other people who supposedly heard this, and says he did not comment when asked about it.

 

[fskimospy]

Because the article specifically says multiple times that this was stated by other people who supposedly heard this, and says he did not comment when asked about it.

Stating what you heard is not hearsay.

Hearsay is a statement about events that you were not witness to and nothing in the article indicates that. It quotes 'people familiar with the matter', which might sound like hearsay, but 'people familiar with the matter' are often the people involved themselves!

 

[Homerboy]

~40% he gets indicted for a non-process crime
< 5% chance he gets convicted
~0% he ever serves time

#america

 

[woolfe9998]

Stating what you heard is not hearsay.

Hearsay is a statement about events that you were not witness to and nothing in the article indicates that. It quotes 'people familiar with the matter', which might sound like hearsay, but 'people familiar with the matter' are often the people involved themselves!

It means testifying about what other people said out of court.

Bear in mind that anything Trump said out of court blows right by the hearsay rule in a criminal proceeding. If a defendant's out of court statements were excluded as hearsay, then no confession ever given to police would be admissible. Unless it is covered by a privilege, any out of court statement of any party to any criminal or civil litigation is going to be admissible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_admission#:~:text=The%20party%20admission%2C%20in%20the,party%20introducing%20it%20into%20evidence

.

In this case, Trump's statements could be considered attorney-client privilege in this context, but that will depend on whether any third parties heard the conversation, which would destroy the privilege.

 

[fskimospy]

It means testifying about what other people said out of court.

Bear in mind that anything Trump said out of court blows right by the hearsay rule in a criminal proceeding. If a defendant's out of court statements were excluded as hearsay, then no confession ever given to police would be admissible. Unless it is covered by a privilege, any out of court statement of any party to any criminal or civil litigation is going to be admissible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_admission#:~:text=The%20party%20admission%2C%20in%20the,party%20introducing%20it%20into%20evidence

.

Ah yes, thanks for the clarification. Still though from what I am reading in the article there's nothing in it that indicates it is the result of hearsay, it quotes 'people familiar with the matter' which COULD be hearsay or it could literally be Trump himself.

 

[woolfe9998]

Ah yes, thanks for the clarification. Still though from what I am reading in the article there's nothing in it that indicates it is the result of hearsay, it quotes 'people familiar with the matter' which COULD be hearsay or it could literally be Trump himself.

You think Trump is the actual source? Seems unlikely.

There are actually several statements here: Trump telling the lawyer to lie and say they produced all the docs, the lawyer refusing, Trump terminating him, and Trump dictating a false statement that the docs were produced. Those are all different things.

On the matter of what Trump said to the lawyer, it is quoting "people familiar with the matter" who presumably either heard Trump say this to the attorney, or heard the attorney say that Trump told him this. In the former case, it isn't a hearsay problem because Trump's own statements always bypass the hearsay rule. If the latter, that is double hearsay and in that case the lawyer himself would have to testify about what Trump said or there would be a hearsay problem.

 

[fskimospy]

You think Trump is the actual source? Seems unlikely.

I don't, just that 'people familiar with the matter' is a guise often used by principals directly involved when they don't want to use their name so you can't say something attributed to 'people familiar' is hearsay because we don't know, and it's quite likely it's not.

There are actually several statements here: Trump telling the lawyer to lie and say they produced all the docs, the lawyer refusing, Trump terminating him, and Trump dictating a false statement that the docs were produced. Those are all different things.

On the matter of what Trump said to the lawyer, it is quoting "people familiar with the matter" who presumably either heard Trump say this to the attorney, or heard the attorney say that Trump told him this. In the former case, it isn't a hearsay problem because Trump's own statements always bypass the hearsay rule. If the latter, that is double hearsay and in that case the lawyer himself would have to testify about what Trump said or there would be a hearsay problem.

Right - which is why I said earlier in the thread that this isn't a smoking gun unless the attorney is willing to testify to it. Seems that while that testimony would be helpful it also seems unnecessary considering all the other available evidence.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Ok, so your argument is that Trump supporters in America are comfortable convicting his friends and associates but would not vote to convict Trump under any circumstances? I guess there's no way to prove or disprove that but to put it mildly I find that unlikely.

I am talking about the spending of political capital. No one is spending it on flunkies. For Trump they will open the political wallet, so to speak.

I'm just trying to understand a broad outline of how Trump gets everything he asks for, in this case a favorable jury assisted by a federal judge. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask you to explain how you think that's going to happen.

He appointed quite a few of the federal judges, and his number one criteria was personal loyalty?
Just look at the rulings of Cannon.
How will it happen? Mostly likely though a lot of fuckery around voir dire and team Trump claiming anyone that is reasonably intelligent and not intimately familiar with Fox News is a left wing Antifa and could not possibly be unbiased, combined with a judge that agrees with them. In the end of a 12 person jury I expect that fully 5 to 8 of them will be hard core republicans and will come to court in red hats, even in DC. Remember we are dealing with people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
Then their entire case is going to be arguing for jury nullification.

This isn't the result of some complex political analysis, it's straightforward.

That is your problem. You think this is not political. Everything Trump does is political. Even if the DOJ does not want it to be, Trump drags politics into it.

 

[QueBert]

I will save yours too but a plea deal counts as me winning as a plea deal will involve Trump pleading guilty to one or more crimes, which is legally a conviction.

IMHO, Trump's incapable of pleading guilty, partially because of his ego and the fact he's too proud and partially because I think he honestly believes the shit he spewed about declassifying documents with his brain power. So I'm imagining he doesn't believe he did anything wrong, and this is all just another witch hunt by the Dems. Regardless, even if he believed he was actually guilty of something, his pride would never let him admit he did anything illegal. Even if it meant it would keep him out of jail. But since in his mind he did nothing wrong, that's a moot point.

To me, Trump admitting he's guilty so not to serve any prison time would be more of a stunner than him saying he wasn't guilty and going to prison because of it.

 

[fskimospy]

I am talking about the spending of political capital. No one is spending it on flunkies. For Trump they will open the political wallet, so to speak.

I find this highly unlikely but again, no way to really say.

He appointed quite a few of the federal judges, and his number one criteria was personal loyalty?
Just look at the rulings of Cannon.

Just look at the rulings of the 11th circuit where 2/3rds of the judges on the panel were appointed by Trump.

How will it happen? Mostly likely though a lot of fuckery around voir dire and team Trump claiming anyone that is reasonably intelligent and not intimately familiar with Fox News is a left wing Antifa and could not possibly be unbiased, combined with a judge that agrees with them.

In the end of a 12 person jury I expect that fully 5 to 8 of them will be hard core republicans and will come to court in red hats, even in DC. Remember we are dealing with people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
Then their entire case is going to be arguing for jury nullification.

So basically your idea is that out of a jury pool of say, 50 people Trump's lawyers are going to not only luck out and end up with triple the number of Republicans that should be in it based on demographics but then will systematically invalidate nearly all the other jurors so that prosecutors have no choice but to seat them AND you think the prosecutors would just accept this? I find that highly unlikely. Also, the people voting Republican in DC are most likely political consultants or other highly educated, powerful people. They are MORE likely to be smart enough to get out of jury duty than the average person.

You would have been better off going with 'the judge will agree with Trump's request to change venue to Florida, where he can get a sympathetic jury'. This stuff above where the judge personally curates the jury pool into some frankenstein's monster is a fantasy.

That is your problem. You think this is not political. Everything Trump does is political. Even if the DOJ does not want it to be, Trump drags politics into it.

I have always been very up front about how I think this is explicitly political, which is why I will be right.

As I've always said the reason why he will be prosecuted is not just that he's a criminal, he's always been that, it's that the politics now strongly align the incentives of people with the ability to indict him to do so.

 

[fskimospy]

IMHO, Trump's incapable of pleading guilty, partially because of his ego and the fact he's too proud and partially because I think he honestly believes the shit he spewed about declassifying documents with his brain power. So I'm imagining he doesn't believe he did anything wrong, and this is all just another witch hunt by the Dems. Regardless, even if he believed he was actually guilty of something, his pride would never let him admit he did anything illegal. Even if it meant it would keep him out of jail. But since in his mind he did nothing wrong, that's a moot point.

To me, Trump admitting he's guilty so not to serve any prison time would be more of a stunner than him saying he wasn't guilty and going to prison because of it.

I generally agree - I think a plea deal is unlikely unless he gets the sweetheart deal to end all sweetheart deals or something. Admitting he was guilty could very well be impossible for someone as mentally ill as he is.

I think it's clear his strategy is maximum fight and delay the entire way with the hope that he is bailed out by a future Republican president.

 

[pete6032]

~40% he gets indicted for a non-process crime
< 5% chance he gets convicted
~0% he ever serves time

Sadly I think you are right. Seems like many of these "damning" article are basically just conviction porn written for clicks from people who don't like Trump.

 

[woolfe9998]

He appointed quite a few of the federal judges, and his number one criteria was personal loyalty?
Just look at the rulings of Cannon.
How will it happen? Mostly likely though a lot of fuckery around voir dire and team Trump claiming anyone that is reasonably intelligent and not intimately familiar with Fox News is a left wing Antifa and could not possibly be unbiased, combined with a judge that agrees with them. In the end of a 12 person jury I expect that fully 5 to 8 of them will be hard core republicans and will come to court in red hats, even in DC. Remember we are dealing with people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
Then their entire case is going to be arguing for jury nullification.

You do realize that 2 of the 3 judges in the 11 Circuit who shot down Cannon's ruling were appointed by Trump? And also, 17 of the judges who shot down his election conspiracy claims in 2020. Cannon may be in Trump's pocket, but you shouldn't just assume this in every case of a Trump appointed judge.

 

[Amused]

You do realize that 2 of the 3 judges in the 11 Circuit who shot down Cannon's ruling were appointed by Trump? And also, 17 of the judges who shot down his election conspiracy claims in 2020. Cannon may be in Trump's pocket, but you shouldn't just assume this in every case of a Trump appointed judge.

And many of the judges who tossed out his 60+ election cases were his appointees as well.

 

[woolfe9998]

And many of the judges who tossed out his 60+ election cases were his appointees as well.

Yes, those are the 17 I mentioned.