• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump NY indictment thread

Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
amenx said:
Breakdown and analysis of the charges (by criminal defense lawyer, Bruce Rivers) and how things will likely unfold in the trial. Summation, Bragg has an easy case to prove vs Trump.

Click to expand...
I stand by the idea that until we know what facts/applicable laws Bragg is using it's very hard to know how solid the case is.

What I have noticed though is there seems to be a sharp disagreement between people who have practiced law in New York who seem to largely think this is a straightforward case to prove and people who have not practiced in New York who think it's shaky. Then again this Bruce Rivers guy is from Minnesota so who knows.
 
Fenixgoon said:
Under the circumstances I'm inclined to agree.

If it were just about any other case, I would say the amounts are so small that one would have to be joking in requesting or suggesting a recusal
Click to expand...
Hmm, this judge should recuse because of donating basically a lunch at McDonalds to Biden...

Thomas won't recuse after tens of millions in trips, gifts, along with a 6-figure salary paid to his wife...
 
I love you guys but have zero interest in any commentary or "expert" analysis on a trial that aint even started yet.
We've had the same circus every time and its always pointless and 99 percent of their "expert analysis" is fucking wrong.
Remember OJ? Remember Donalds first impeachment? Remember Donalds second impeachment?
The experts were just trying to get attention. And maybe collect a paycheck.
Even worse is you know the idiot woman daytime talkshows are getting into this shit too, and I bet a million dollars it sounds like hens clucking.



 
shortylickens said:
I love you guys but have zero interest in any commentary or "expert" analysis on a trial that aint even started yet.
We've had the same circus every time and its always pointless and 99 percent of their "expert analysis" is fucking wrong.
Remember OJ? Remember Donalds first impeachment? Remember Donalds second impeachment?
The experts were just trying to get attention. And maybe collect a paycheck.
Even worse is you know the idiot woman daytime talkshows are getting into this shit too, and I bet a million dollars it sounds like hens clucking.



Click to expand...
Pretty sure the expert analysis on both Trump impeachments was ‘he is obviously guilty but won’t be convicted’ so not sure what the issue is there.
 
fleshconsumed said:
He appears to hold his tongue during depositions.

www.theguardian.com

Trump pleaded the fifth more than 400 times in fraud deposition, video shows

Former president repeatedly invoked constitutional right against self-incrimination in New York footage from late last summer
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

I'd venture to guess he'll hold his tongue at actual trial too.
Click to expand...

Yes, I give it 2 out of 3 that he'll obey advice of counsel here.

Would be great if he decided to do it.

Bragg: Did you order the hush money payments? I want the truth!
Trump: The truth! I can't handle the truth!
 
Trump lives in a world where you can do whatever you want to people as long as you have somebody else come along and “take care” of them. Who knows how many non-disclosure/settlement agreements he’s reached over the years to avoid the embarrassment of being publicly outed for his horndog conduct? (He’s certainly made mention of such contracts). Once the election got into full gear, it became even more important for Trump to silence these stories. As somebody who had a track record of such things, he just had to ramp up the intensity of his usual cohort of “fixers”. I can imagine him yelling into the phone “find all of them! I don’t want anything getting out!”

The actual court documents lay out the entire scheme succinctly, including Trump’s informal agreement for Pecker to act as “the eyes and ears” of the campaign and to alert Trump to damaging stories, also to run damaging stories about Trump’s opponents.


According to one detail, the reason AMI (American Media, the National Enquirer’s parent company) declined to pay for Woman 2’s (Stormy Daniels) story in the catch and kill scheme was that Trump was supposed to reimburse Pecker for the 150K they paid for McDougal’s story and he stiffed him. So Pecker declined to throw good money after bad and called in Cohen.

"Trump Stiffs Pecker, Leaves Him Hanging!"

The headlines just write themselves.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Judge in this case donated small amounts to democrats/Biden.


Judge should recuse himself. Sitting judges should not be making political donations, no matter the amount. This process needs to be squeaky clean.

If we want to complain over judicial ethics with someone like Clarence Thomas, who is much worse, everything on our end needs to be on the up and up.
Click to expand...
Fuck that.
If under normal circumstances a trivial donation of 15 dollars is a non issue then the Judge should not recuse himself.

There is no need and all this bullshit about appearance is pointless.

Apply the standard and move the fuck on.
Playing this nonsense of " We must be the noble ones who must go beyond the standard and be pure as the driven snow" is a waste of time and the reasons why GOP bastards love this shit. Democrats sacrifice there own for appearance. Republicans simply double down.

What's next? "Judge voted Democrat therefore bias must be present therefore he should recuse himself?"
 
fskimospy said:
I stand by the idea that until we know what facts/applicable laws Bragg is using it's very hard to know how solid the case is.

What I have noticed though is there seems to be a sharp disagreement between people who have practiced law in New York who seem to largely think this is a straightforward case to prove and people who have not practiced in New York who think it's shaky. Then again this Bruce Rivers guy is from Minnesota so who knows.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if it came out that Trump wasn't doing something questionable. People that think they're important often think the rules don't apply to them, and no one think's they're more important than Trump does.
 
pauldun170 said:
Fuck that.
If under normal circumstances a trivial donation of 15 dollars is a non issue then the Judge should not recuse himself.

There is no need and all this bullshit about appearance is pointless.

Apply the standard and move the fuck on.
Playing this nonsense of " We must be the noble ones who must go beyond the standard and be pure as the driven snow" is a waste of time and the reasons why GOP bastards love this shit. Democrats sacrifice there own for appearance. Republicans simply double down.

What's next? "Judge voted Democrat therefore bias must be present therefore he should recuse himself?"
Click to expand...
I think the main issue here is they would happily pocket the delay for finding a new judge and then would immediately come up with something wrong about the new judge.

The amount of the donation is trivial and it’s very telling that the same people have no issue with Clarence Thomas being given millions or tens of millions by a right wing donor.
 
Greenman said:
I'd be surprised if it came out that Trump wasn't doing something questionable. People that think they're important often think the rules don't apply to them, and no one think's they're more important than Trump does.
Click to expand...
Well I mean we know Trump was a party to massive tax fraud in the past and it went unpunished. I somehow doubt the lesson he took from that was to keep his nose clean going forward.
 
pauldun170 said:
Fuck that.
If under normal circumstances a trivial donation of 15 dollars is a non issue then the Judge should not recuse himself.

There is no need and all this bullshit about appearance is pointless.

Apply the standard and move the fuck on.
Playing this nonsense of " We must be the noble ones who must go beyond the standard and be pure as the driven snow" is a waste of time and the reasons why GOP bastards love this shit. Democrats sacrifice there own for appearance. Republicans simply double down.

What's next? "Judge voted Democrat therefore bias must be present therefore he should recuse himself?"
Click to expand...
But yet the TX judge that overruled the FDA on the abortion drug is perfectly fine when he was a well known anti abortion activist. Again rules for thee, not for me.
 
So it appears at least one of the jury in the upcoming Trump trial will vote not guilty because they believe it's selective prosecution of Trump. Even in the more conservative Staten Island. Which is not new in the thread of course. Not that I want a not guilty verdict but just trying to be practical.

And now millions of Americans will read articles like the one below of the LA Times 1996 article about Chinagate where the Clinton campaign was found guilty of taking illegal campaign contributions. They got fined by the FEC but no criminal charges against Bill Clinton or anyone else. Edit: Which could add millions more people who think it's just selective prosecution against Trump.

www.latimes.com

1996 Fund-Raising Scandals Bring Stiff Penalty

Politics: The FEC levies a record $719,000 in fines against DNC and other groups for arranging illegal contributions from foreign sources.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com

And for general reference about Chinagate is the Wiki on it:

1996 United States campaign finance controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
PlanetJosh said:
So it appears at least one of the jury in the upcoming Trump trial will vote not guilty because they believe it's selective prosecution of Trump. Even in the more conservative Staten Island. Which is not new in the thread of course. Not that I want a not guilty verdict but just trying to be practical.

And now millions of Americans will read articles like the one below of the LA Times 1996 article about Chinagate where the Clinton campaign was found guilty of taking illegal campaign contributions. They got fined by the FEC but no criminal charges against Bill Clinton or anyone else. Edit: Which could add millions more people who think it's just selective prosecution against Trump.

www.latimes.com

1996 Fund-Raising Scandals Bring Stiff Penalty

Politics: The FEC levies a record $719,000 in fines against DNC and other groups for arranging illegal contributions from foreign sources.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com

And for general reference about Chinagate is the Wiki on it:

1996 United States campaign finance controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Where are you getting that from? Where did you get the idea that jury selection has taken place?
 
^ I meant to say or imply it's for a future jury including its formation when I said "upcoming Trump trial" in my post. I may not have been clear enough.
 
My Q friends and family claim that Biden is a robot, that Pelosi is a robot, but look closely at this photo of Melania and Donald after his indictment. Melania does indeed look like the robot. A cyber creation. The ultimate Stepford wife.

At one time, Melania refused to hold Donald's hand in public, Melania refused to attend political functions with Donald, Melania refused to crack a smile in the direction of Donald and yet now Melania is unquestionably and total subservient to hubby Donald.
Try to tell me that Melania has not been humaniod-ized.
Plus, just look at her dead dark eyes. They can never get the eyes correct with these humanoids.
Melania is not human, she is a robot.

OIP.koN44LAztm0e8Ij1EeJR1gAAAA.jpg
Zip-Zonk-Zewey. I DO NOT COMPUTE - I DO NOT COMPUTE
WARNING WARNING DANGER DANGER
ENGAGE CROTCH FORCEFIELD
 
Last edited:
Jim Jordan 🙄
All of these house pubes, that is house repubs live in a teeny tiny world of their own. Jim Jordan actually thinks he's a member of congress, and so does MTGreene. Ever since they were elected they are play toy's for democrats to play with.

The committee will come to order
OIP.MnYW3iVpnsmuEoXgsoLj_gHaE8.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top