F ormer President Donald Trump played up his upcoming debate with President Joe Biden to his supporters using language that wouldn't be out of place in the Mortal Kombat fighting game series.
"IT'S GOING TO BE A BLOODBATH," said the former president's latest fundraising text. "And I want YOU there when I finish Biden. ENTER TO MEET TRUMP."
"Finish him," is the signature line of the franchise.
The text links to Trump's page on the WinRed platform, which states: "Get ready for the ultimate VIP MAGA experience. I’m inviting YOU to my OFFICIAL Team Trump Watch Party! All I need you to do is chip in whatever you can by MIDNIGHT TONIGHT and I’ll enter you for a chance to MEET TRUMP."
The former president has often come under criticism for his use of violent language to galvanize his followers into action.
Earlier this month, for example, he generated controversy with a fundraising email that proclaimed liberals want to " haul out the guillotine " following his 34-count felony conviction in New York, continuing, "They want me BEHEADED after this verdict. And it's not just me they want gone, THEY'RE REALLY COMING AFTER YOU!"
The debate, set to take place on CNN in 10 days, will be the first general election debate and the first time Trump himself takes the stage to face off against an opponent, having skipped all the debates in the GOP primary.
Biden, for his part, is also trying to raise voter awareness ahead of the debate, taking out an ad across battleground states trying to define the former president.
“In the courtroom, we see Donald Trump for who he is. He’s been convicted of 34 felonies, found liable for sexual assault and he committed financial fraud,” states the ad. “Meanwhile, Joe Biden’s been working — lowering health care costs and making big corporations pay their fair share.”
“In the courtroom, we see Donald Trump for who he is. He’s been convicted of 34 felonies, found liable for sexual assault and he committed financial fraud,” states the ad. “Meanwhile, Joe Biden’s been working — lowering health care costs and making big corporations pay their fair share.”
If Merchan even thinks of any jail time for Trump for what amounts to a petty misdemeanor that no one has ever been charged with before, all hell will break loose and descend upon the Democrats. The Soviet style sham trial has only resulted in making Trump stronger and making the Dems look desperate and stupid. No ads are going to save Biden and his down ballot lackeys.
If Merchan even thinks of any jail time for Trump for what amounts to a petty misdemeanor that no one has ever been charged with before, all hell will break loose and descend upon the Democrats.
How dare the judge sentence Trump to jail for committing 34 felonies!!!
The Soviet style sham trial has only resulted in making Trump stronger and making the Dems look desperate and stupid.
Yeah, those Soviets, forcing trial results to be determined by twelve people who are agreed upon by the defense's own attorneys. You can't get much more crooked than that.
How dare the judge sentence Trump to jail for committing 34 felonies!!!
Partisan TDS driven judge running a Kangaroo court that repeatedly sided with the prosecution against all legal statutes. Including not allowing key defense witnesses testimony. Also violated a Supreme Court ruling when issuing his final jury instructions.
In The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump , Justice Juan Merchan issued a set of jury instructions —55 pages in length. Merchan permitted the jury to convict based on a violation of N.Y. Election Law Section 17-152. Conviction under Section 17-152 requires a predicate legal violation: a violation of some other law as part of a conspiracy to promote the election of a candidate for public office. That is, Section 17-152 is satisfied only if the defendant has violated Section 17-152 “by unlawful means.” However, according to Merchan’s instructions, the jurors did not need to reach a unanimous agreement as to what were the “unlawful means.”
Merchan’s jury instructions state:
Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.
In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following unlawful means: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.
In short, in order to convict, the jury must unanimously agree that a predicate legal violation occurred: (1) or (2) or (3), as listed above. But the jury, according to Merchan’s instructions, need not unanimously agree on any one such predicate violation. The 12-member jury could divide 4-to-4-to-4, where each juror agreed that Trump committed one of the three predicate legal violations, but there is no unanimity required in regard to any one or more of them.
There is some good reason to believe Merchan’s jury instructions are flawed, that is, the jury instructions violate Trump’s constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. To support that position one looks to other similar statutes, where the same unanimity issue has been adjudicated by a court of record. Indeed, Section 17-152 is not the only statute making use of predicate acts, where the predicate acts are themselves legal violations.
Yeah, those Soviets, forcing trial results to be determined by twelve people who are agreed upon by the defense's own attorneys. You can't get much more crooked than that.
You mean 12 TDS driven mighty mental midget New Yorkers? Considering half of the jury pool left when the judge asked if they could be unbiased in their decisions tells everyone all they need to know. They were the honest ones. The rest wanted a chance to get Trump. Nothing else. The chances of any pro Trump or unbiased juror making it were nil.
New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan asked the first 96 prospective jurors to indicate if they couldn’t be fair and impartial in the case. Half of them were dismissed after raising their hands . Trump soon promoted the Fox News commentary of former Justice Department official and Trump administration appointee John Yoo, who called it “pretty extraordinary” that “half of the jury pool already says they’re so biased against President Trump that they can’t serve on the jury.” Trump allies on social media promoted the clip and extensively echoed the talking point. The idea is that Trump can’t get a fair trial in a locale where just 12 percent of voters supported him in 2020, and that this development laid that fact bare.
A kangaroo court is still a kangaroo court whether it be Merchan's courtroom; Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, or any third world tin horn dictatorship.
Sentence Trump and seal Democrats fate in the 2024 election.
all hell will break loose and descend upon the Democrats. The Soviet style sham trial has only resulted in making Trump stronger and making the Dems look desperate and stupid
Untrue. The large majority of independents polled have said his convictions have made them less likely to vote for him. Why do you keep pushing this nonsense? Lock that criminal up already, where he can serve time alongside all the citizens who are in there for lesser crimes than his.
Before I address that, I must first chastise you or anyone else on here who makes these absurd claims or supports them with no evidence, and then demands that other people do research. It’s lazy - and that is obvious enough - but it also speaks to a lack of integrity on the part of people who are prepared to argue a thing for purely political tribalism. There’s no thoughtfulness in that and no honest debate.
Then it should be easy for you.
It actually was easy. It would have been easy for you too, if only you had put out some effort. It required no special access to court records or legal research sites. Google was adequate.
By the way, you didn’t even get the relevant code right. Trump was charged and convicted of violating New York State Penal Code, section 175.10, not 17-152. 17-152 is not even in the Penal Code. It is a section in New York’s State Election Law , and it is the law that Trump was intending to violate, and was the reason he did actually violate PC 175.10. It is one of three theories of “unlawfulness” that the jury was told to consider.
17-152 is prosecuted, but rarely for easy enough reasons. It’s not a government conspiracy or anything. First, elections don’t happen every day, so there is limited opportunity to violate the code in the first place. Second, it is only a misdemeanor, and people accused of violating it have usually committed felonies to go along with it - just like Trump - and so the felonies are what get prosecuted. If only the misdemeanor were charged, it would most likely be pled down.
So to summarize, concerning yourself with prosecutions for violating 17-152 is irrelevant. Trump was not charged or convicted of violating that code.
Again, things you could have learned with Google.
You asked for one person. I will give you access to dozens , while listing just a few important examples here. The link below will take you to a pdf listing 24 PAGES of convictions under New York State Penal Code, section 175.10. The pdf includes the conviction of Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg.
The People of the State of New York v. Josue Aguilar Dubon, AKA Saady Dubon, AKA Alejandro Ortiz (October 2022) — Bronx business owner indicted for failing to report over $1 million in income, avoiding paying $60,000 in taxes.
The People of the State of New York v. Scott Kirtland (February 2022) — Insurance broker indicted for allegedly creating/filing fraudulent certificates of liability insurance to further scheme to defraud.
The People of the State of New York v. James Garner (November 2021) — Mental health therapy aide indicted for allegedly defrauding over $35,000 in workers’ compensation benefits.
The People of the State of New York v. Jose Palmer (November 2016) — Pleaded guilty to petit larceny for unemployment benefits fraud of over $3,000, having initially been indicted for grand larceny and falsifying business records in the first degree.
The People of the State of New York v. Jason Holley (November 2016) — Convicted by jury of falsifying business records in the first degree but acquitted of the predicate crime, insurance fraud.
The People of the State of New York v. Christina Murray (May 2015) & People v. Terrel Murray (May 2014) — Married couple convicted of house fire insurance claim, attempting to recover the cash value of various items of property that were ostensibly lost in the fire.
The People of the State of New York v. Barbara A. Freeland (June 2013) — Convicted for falsely claiming on a food stamps application that a young adult lived with her.
The People of the State of New York v. Maria F. Ramirez (August 2010) — Convicted for returning unpurchased items to a store in exchange for store credit, thus causing a false entry in a business record of an enterprise, and using the store credit to purchase additional items one day.
first chastise you or anyone else on here who makes these absurd claims or supports them with no evidence
Sigh. I've proven the point many times. You continuously ignore it, and refute strawman arguments based on your apparent inability to understand what Trump was actually convicted of.
as the reason he did actually violate PC 175.10. It is one of three theories of “unlawfulness” that the jury was told to consider.
Yet again, that's not true. The Jury was specifically instructed they had to find a violation of 17-152 to convict. It is the "other crime" that makes 175.10 a felony. It was not, like you and others claimed, a FECLA violation. From the literal jury instructions under the heading THE CHARGED CRIMES:
The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152.
It's simple English. I've explained this before but I will do it again. The judge gave the jury three theories to consider how Trump violated 17-152, but the JURY HAD TO FIND A VIOLATION OF 17-152 to convict. It was not "an option" like you claim.
17-152 is prosecuted, but rarely for easy enough reasons
Odd, New York election law experts say it's not and I've given you proof of that, which you ignored. Where's your evidence it is?
concerning yourself with prosecutions for violating 17-152 is irrelevant. Trump was not charged or convicted of violating that code.
and the Judge specifically instructed the jury that they had to find :
Although you must conclude unanimouslythat the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. In determining whether the defendant conspi
The jury was not allowed to determine Trump "intended to conspire." They had to unanimously agree that he did, in fact, conspire and therefore violate 17-152.
A kangaroo court is still a kangaroo court whether it be Merchan's courtroom; Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, or any third world tin horn dictatorship.
I don’t know if we’re miscommunicating or what. Trump was convicted of falsifying business records. That crime is a felony if he did it trying to do some other crime.
The jury was not expected to return a verdict on that other crime because it doesn’t matter if the defendant succeeded in that effort - just that he tried to.
Prosecutors had three possible theories of intended criminal wrongdoing. One was federal election law - specifically, the Federal Election Campaign Act. A second was state election law - the aforementioned 17-152. A third was a state tax crime that he knowingly submitted false information in relation to his tax returns. The jury did not have to agree on which law he was trying to break.
That crime is a felony if he did it trying to do some other crime.
Yes, and that other crime was violating 17-152. It's the predicate crime. If the jury did not find he violated 17.152, he could not be found guilty of 175.1
e jury was not expected to return a verdict on that other crime
They couldn't because the SOL had expired as it is a misdemeanor with a 2 year SOL. The whole case consists of bootstrapping misdemeanor offenses with expired SOLs into a felony by combining them to avoid the SOL.
. Prosecutors had three possible theories of intended criminal wrongdoing. One was federal election law - specifically, the Federal Election Campaign Act. A second was state election law - the aforementioned 17-152.
This is 100% wrong, but understandable given the prosecution's refusal to specify the second crime in the indictment and the Judge allowing it not to be specified until trial. Just read the jury instructions. The other crime is 17.152. To find a violation of 17.152, the Judge gave the jury three options. I will quote again from the jury instructions:
In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following unlawful means: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.
The Prosecution's theory is this:
Trump committed a misdemeanor bookkeeping violation.
It becomes a felony if a second crime can be proven.
The second crime is the misdemeanor 17.152 (conspiracy to prevent or promote an election of a person)
To find a violation of 17.152, the jury can pick between these three options:
1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.
The whole case consists of bootstrapping misdemeanor offenses with expired SOLs into a felony by combining them
Which is 100% legal.
to avoid the SOL.
It’s unlikely they would even bother to prosecute misdemeanors, but they do prosecute this specific felony by attaching to underlying crimes all the time.
It becomes a felony if a second crime can be proven.
Yes. We agree on this. Everything beyond this is either semantics or you just hating the truth of the case.
You are complaining about a very common legal procedure. I don’t know what else to tell you. The universe will not always unfold in the way you want.
I never suggested it wasn’t. It just underlines the flimsiness of the charges.
t’s unlikely they would even bother to prosecute misdemeanor
Lol. The DA ordered his staff to find a crime to charge Trump with. And here we are. 34 felonies that consist of two misdemeanors which aren’t even prosecutable because of the SOL. No one else would ever be prosecuted for this as the Clinton campaign can attest.
Everything beyond this is either semantics or you just hating the truth of the case.
No. You’ve made repeated errors about what the prosecution was required to prove. Some ding dongs might not understand this, but you should be able to read the jury instructions and comprehend that Trump could not be found guilty without the jury finding he violated 17-152. Period.
To reiterate, no one has ever been convicted of violating 17-152, the violation that made this prosecution possible.
ou are complaining about a very common legal procedure.
Yet again, you pivot to a straw man. If convictions under 17-152 are common, by all means demonstrate it. That's what started this, and all these posts later you've not shown a single conviction. All you've done is deflect, including using a demonstrably wrong claim that the jury didn't have to find Trump violated 17-152 to convict him. .
Continually complaining about something legal is suggesting it’s not legal. Your whole approach to to this case suggest you think that the prosecution was illegal.
The DA ordered his staff to find a crime to charge Trump with. And here we are.
Trump got a fair trial and a jury found him guilty. Don’t just look to the DA.
no one has ever been convicted of violating 17-152
That is simply not true, and you can look it up. I’m tired of doing your research for you.
If convictions under 17-152 are common
For the millionth time, he was neither charged nor convicted of that code. It’s only relevant to making the case a felony, and all that was required was that the jury belief that was his intent - not that he actually did it.. I will ignore you if you keep trying to argue a settled issue.
You have no valid complaint about any part of this case.
ally complaining about something legal is suggesting it’s not legal. Your wh
Nonsense. It's not difficult to understand that the prosecution of an ex-President has all sorts of angles and dimensions besides the strict legality of it . Ask Leon Jaworski. Here, the only thing I was discussing was the fact that no one has ever been convicted under 17-152. That and asking you to show a conviction was all I wrote in the first post . Instead of simply saying X was convicted, you've piled so many strawman on top of deflections that you've turned your responses into a mountain of irrelevancies.
rump got a fair trial and a jury found him guilty.
Lol. First, off the fair trial notion is absurd, but let's stay on track. .
hat is simply not true, and you can look it up. I’m tired of doing your research for you.
You must know more than Judge Merchan, New York election law experts and all the reporting in this case. They've been unable to cite a conviction. Since I can't prove a negative, as I said in my first post if it's as common as you make it out to be , it should be easy for you to do so. Odd that the Judge was unaware of these convictions that you have knowledge of, though.
e was neither charged nor convicted of that code
Get that strawman! As I've explained already, he could not be charged or convicted of 17-152 because the SOL expired years ago. 17-152 is the required predicate crime necessary for conviction. What part of this aren't you understanding?
It’s only relevant to making the case a felony
Lol. No shit. That's why it's so important. The business records case can't be charged as a misdemeanor because the SOL expired years ago, so the prosecution needed a means to create a felony (voila, a misdemeanor that no one else has been convicted of).
and all that was required was that the jury belief that was his intent - not that he actually did it.
Words have meaning:
Although you must conclude unanimouslythat the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means...
n determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means
Do you see any word modifying the words "conspired to promote or prevent the election" in the jury instructions about what the jury specifically was required to find? I
I'll rely on the actual jury instructions as to what the jury was required to find.
e no valid complaint about any part of this case.
I'll take that for what's it worth from someone who three weeks after verdict who is still claiming that 17-152 was one of "three possible theories of intended criminal wrongdoing."
Biden can't run on his record; so all he and Democrats can do is attack Trump.
If that was all it was it would just by typical Democrat BS.
Abusing the power of office with the FBI, IRS, DOJ, and AG/DA's at the state level with lawfare is beyond the pale.
Democrats can take Trump completely out of context and use only a small portion of what he said in attack ads all they want.
Four more years of their rule is something this country with not withstand. If Democrats are not stopped now they will be emboldened to use the same tactics against all of their political opponents. This isn't Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran. No matter how badly Democrats want to make it so.
"IT'S GOING TO BE A BLOODBATH," said the former president's latest fundraising text. "And I want YOU there when I finish Biden. ENTER TO MEET TRUMP."
"Finish him," is the signature line of the franchise.
The text links to Trump's page on the WinRed platform, which states: "Get ready for the ultimate VIP MAGA experience. I’m inviting YOU to my OFFICIAL Team Trump Watch Party! All I need you to do is chip in whatever you can by MIDNIGHT TONIGHT and I’ll enter you for a chance to MEET TRUMP."
What kind of person does this nonsense appeal to ?
In response to the relentless Trump assault on reality?
...Abusing the power of office with the FBI, IRS, DOJ, and AG/DA's at the state level with lawfare is beyond the pale.
That comment is delusional.
Democrats can take Trump completely out of context and use only a small portion of what he said in attack ads all they want.
Maybe they learned it from Previous GOP campaigns?
Four more years of their rule is something this country with not withstand. If Democrats are not stopped now they will be emboldened to use the same tactics against all of their political opponents. This isn't Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran. No matter how badly Democrats want to make it so.
In 2016 he tapped into the dark side and invigorated their long standing frustration with easy bumper sticker sloganeering: lock her up, build the wall, drain the swamp…No such chanting today.
In some ways, he has become hillary…no real policy or platform in relying on the weakness of the opponent, and narcissistically focused solely on winning the presidency.
Democrats can take Trump completely out of context and use only a small portion of what he said in attack ads all they want.
Is this a new concept for you? Replace the word “Democrats” with the word “candidates”, and the word “Trump” with the word “opponents”. I’m sure you’d prefer Biden to be milquetoast and meager, but he’s on the attack with a massive arsenal of Trump’s weaknesses.
I hope he sheds more light on his brilliant plan to eliminate income tax and replace it with tariffs. I’m sure his supporters are excited about having no taxes but paying triple for everything they need to live and then somehow blaming Joe Biden for the increase. The ultra wealthy will be even more excited at their prospects of turning from millionaire to billionaire, or billionaire to trillionaire.
Not gonna happen. This whole sham trial was a political hit job from the get go for all the reasons cited in previous threads and in the media by legal experts. The left got a guilty verdict for a statute limited misdemeanor that magically evolved into a 5th class felony for an alleged crime that no one has precisely defined. That verdict has amounted to an increase or popularity for Trump. The progressives have fucked up once again.
Trump's intent was never proven, only assumed. It's highly improbable he even knew that such an obscure New York law existed. And what was the other crime?
"Penal Law Section 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."
It was all criminal to begin with and it became felonies when additional crimes were committed and criminal conspiracies were enacted in order to cover up the original crimes...
I don’t know what you mean by that. The jury could not have returned guilty verdicts for felonies without finding that he had falsified business records with specific criminal intent. Their options regarding that specificity - including the election law - were made clear to the jury.
It's highly improbable he even knew that such an obscure New York law existed.
First, ignorance of the law is not a defense. Second, don’t you think any candidate - not to mention the former president - would know that interfering with an election is a crime?
He never interfered with an election. If you think so, please lay out all the details. It is not a crime if one attempts to influence an election. That's what the Democrats are attempting to do right now.
He never interfered with an election. If you think so, please lay out all the details.
Keep some perspective. First - that’s not my job. The prosecution made the argument and it’s possible someone on the jury agreed with it. For all I know, they all decided he was guilty because of the tax law.
Second, it doesn’t matter if he succeeded in interfering with the election. What matters is whether or not the jury believed that’s what he was trying to do.
Most independents and liberals don't involve themselves in polls.
Why do you believe that?
I certainly never do. I just hang up on them.
removed for context
I took it as most gone wild independents don't swing from poles, but just like
grandpa Munster, they hang from them,
where as eye, see myself hangin around, till my impure
feat touch the fertile grounds
of coffee , n i scream, cause i forgot my spoon, and boots, cause i took a fork, and stabbed myself in the i phoney, just for a few hoots, but feal not wise, just older but for reel, cause the alternative is alternately not positively grounded to the negativity, of a nativity seen from above, but with less love, than a threee
like that whitch i cast upon my pollster's whilst phishing, for that , that tat witch does lure,
the impure causes the impurities i n joy chattin like a Katty Chathy till Trump grabs me
like a pussy
would, and some get hung up on, hang ups, by pols bought to be brought forth, on the premise , that they promise to never get hung up on by a crank caller maid to make me holler for a dollar while making a death bed room to sleep around the coffee grounds to call fuzz, on a peach, as they cop a plea to please call police men and women to have a poll about a pole
least man for rent till evicted by a convicted felon who fell off, his pole position took on the pole most leased the least, i could due, no ?
and Drinker, don't thinker this cannabis and alcohaul fueled ranting non scense is for you, just babbling like a tired brook kings in stitute, that consumed too much Absolute
I also 100% agree. I think a sentence of at least one year and a day is appropriate for 34 felony convictions, absolutely no showing of remorse and the complete and utter contempt he has shown for the judicial system.
I think a sentence of at least one year and a day is appropriate for 34 felony convictions, absolutely no showing of remorse and the complete and utter contempt he has shown for the judicial system.
Well, you're the lawyer, hard for me to disagree.
Do I see him doing more than 6 months? No. I think Judge Merchan has been more than lenient with regards to the gag order violations though... A year does seem more fair.
I also suspect he would not serve more than six months, even with a longer sentence, which he richly deserves. I'm good with his sentence being as long as Judge Merchan might determine is appropriate, but I do think some time served is necessary. As we know, prisoners are often released well short of serving their entire sentence for "good behavior" in some jurisdictions, or for other reasons, although Donald Trump and "good behavior" is an obvious oxymoron (emphasis on moron). I don't know if "good behavior" is grounds for early release in New York.
Your Comment 4.2.25 is just one really weird comment. Not only is it internally inconsistent and completely devoid of logic, I've never read a comment that is so deeply psychologically conflicted.
I doubt he'll be sent to any prison. I'm sure that any incarceration if imposed would be house arrest, probably to the house and grounds of Mar a Lago while wearing a GPS anklet. It would just be an enforced golf vacation.
Your Honor, as a term and condition of the confinement, the People request that the defendant be ordered to remain within the confines of his house and not venture outside to play golf.
Lol. It might feel like that if you really love golf.
But more seriously, I suspect a lot of people don’t realize that normally perfectly legal behavior is often restricted as a term of probation or parole.
Honestly, I wouldn’t want to just throw out a random number. There are always legal guidelines for this stuff. The judge will review briefs from both sides and a probation report. There are usually long lists of aggravating or mitigating circumstances to consider, and this applies to both the crime and the defendant.
If I were really acting as a judge, I would follow these steps just as with any other case.
At least have a USGA marshal count his every stroke. A fate worse than death for Trump; the lifelong golf cheat. The world would finally know that he is a loser and cheat at golf as well as everything else.
MAGA (winred.com)
Trump goes Mortal Kombat in latest text to supporters
F ormer President Donald Trump played up his upcoming debate with President Joe Biden to his supporters using language that wouldn't be out of place in the Mortal Kombat fighting game series.
"IT'S GOING TO BE A BLOODBATH," said the former president's latest fundraising text. "And I want YOU there when I finish Biden. ENTER TO MEET TRUMP."
"Finish him," is the signature line of the franchise.
The text links to Trump's page on the WinRed platform, which states: "Get ready for the ultimate VIP MAGA experience. I’m inviting YOU to my OFFICIAL Team Trump Watch Party! All I need you to do is chip in whatever you can by MIDNIGHT TONIGHT and I’ll enter you for a chance to MEET TRUMP."
The former president has often come under criticism for his use of violent language to galvanize his followers into action.
Earlier this month, for example, he generated controversy with a fundraising email that proclaimed liberals want to " haul out the guillotine " following his 34-count felony conviction in New York, continuing, "They want me BEHEADED after this verdict. And it's not just me they want gone, THEY'RE REALLY COMING AFTER YOU!"
The debate, set to take place on CNN in 10 days, will be the first general election debate and the first time Trump himself takes the stage to face off against an opponent, having skipped all the debates in the GOP primary.
Biden, for his part, is also trying to raise voter awareness ahead of the debate, taking out an ad across battleground states trying to define the former president.
“In the courtroom, we see Donald Trump for who he is. He’s been convicted of 34 felonies, found liable for sexual assault and he committed financial fraud,” states the ad. “Meanwhile, Joe Biden’s been working — lowering health care costs and making big corporations pay their fair share.”
How dare the judge sentence Trump to jail for committing 34 felonies!!!
Yeah, those Soviets, forcing trial results to be determined by twelve people who are agreed upon by the defense's own attorneys. You can't get much more crooked than that.
Have you sent Trump your donation yet? He needs it or he might not show up at the debate.
This lie again! It’s not true. It’s not true. It’s not true. It’s not true. It’s not true.
He was convicted of 34 felonies and yes, people have been charged with it before. Any other representation is pure fantasy.
Partisan TDS driven judge running a Kangaroo court that repeatedly sided with the prosecution against all legal statutes. Including not allowing key defense witnesses testimony. Also violated a Supreme Court ruling when issuing his final jury instructions.
You mean 12 TDS driven mighty mental midget New Yorkers? Considering half of the jury pool left when the judge asked if they could be unbiased in their decisions tells everyone all they need to know. They were the honest ones. The rest wanted a chance to get Trump. Nothing else. The chances of any pro Trump or unbiased juror making it were nil.
A kangaroo court is still a kangaroo court whether it be Merchan's courtroom; Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, or any third world tin horn dictatorship.
Sentence Trump and seal Democrats fate in the 2024 election.
all hell will break loose and descend upon the Democrats. The Soviet style sham trial has only resulted in making Trump stronger and making the Dems look desperate and stupid
Untrue. The large majority of independents polled have said his convictions have made them less likely to vote for him. Why do you keep pushing this nonsense? Lock that criminal up already, where he can serve time alongside all the citizens who are in there for lesser crimes than his.
4.1
Name one person convicted for violating 17-152.
. Any other representation is pure fantasy.
Then it should be easy for you.
Why do you all expect others to do your homework/research for you?
And yet the polls have barely moved since his conviction...
Before I address that, I must first chastise you or anyone else on here who makes these absurd claims or supports them with no evidence, and then demands that other people do research. It’s lazy - and that is obvious enough - but it also speaks to a lack of integrity on the part of people who are prepared to argue a thing for purely political tribalism. There’s no thoughtfulness in that and no honest debate.
It actually was easy. It would have been easy for you too, if only you had put out some effort. It required no special access to court records or legal research sites. Google was adequate.
By the way, you didn’t even get the relevant code right. Trump was charged and convicted of violating New York State Penal Code, section 175.10, not 17-152. 17-152 is not even in the Penal Code. It is a section in New York’s State Election Law , and it is the law that Trump was intending to violate, and was the reason he did actually violate PC 175.10. It is one of three theories of “unlawfulness” that the jury was told to consider.
17-152 is prosecuted, but rarely for easy enough reasons. It’s not a government conspiracy or anything. First, elections don’t happen every day, so there is limited opportunity to violate the code in the first place. Second, it is only a misdemeanor, and people accused of violating it have usually committed felonies to go along with it - just like Trump - and so the felonies are what get prosecuted. If only the misdemeanor were charged, it would most likely be pled down.
So to summarize, concerning yourself with prosecutions for violating 17-152 is irrelevant. Trump was not charged or convicted of violating that code.
Again, things you could have learned with Google.
You asked for one person. I will give you access to dozens , while listing just a few important examples here. The link below will take you to a pdf listing 24 PAGES of convictions under New York State Penal Code, section 175.10. The pdf includes the conviction of Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg.
Survey of Past New York Felony Prosecutions for Falsifying Business Records
Applause! Applause! Applause!
Sigh. I've proven the point many times. You continuously ignore it, and refute strawman arguments based on your apparent inability to understand what Trump was actually convicted of.
as the reason he did actually violate PC 175.10. It is one of three theories of “unlawfulness” that the jury was told to consider.
Yet again, that's not true. The Jury was specifically instructed they had to find a violation of 17-152 to convict. It is the "other crime" that makes 175.10 a felony. It was not, like you and others claimed, a FECLA violation. From the literal jury instructions under the heading THE CHARGED CRIMES:
It's simple English. I've explained this before but I will do it again. The judge gave the jury three theories to consider how Trump violated 17-152, but the JURY HAD TO FIND A VIOLATION OF 17-152 to convict. It was not "an option" like you claim.
Odd, New York election law experts say it's not and I've given you proof of that, which you ignored. Where's your evidence it is?
concerning yourself with prosecutions for violating 17-152 is irrelevant. Trump was not charged or convicted of violating that code.
That is, as they say, bullshit.
You don't see the clear contradiction in what you write.
Incorrect. From the jury instruction you quoted:
So no actual violation had to be proven. Just intent. Do you see it now?
Simple question for you. What statute was Trump convicted of 34 times? Google it if you don't believe me.
How do you intend to commit a conspiracy? Intending to engage in a conspiracy is not a thing.
and the Judge specifically instructed the jury that they had to find :
The jury was not allowed to determine Trump "intended to conspire." They had to unanimously agree that he did, in fact, conspire and therefore violate 17-152.
Only the truly TDS ridden will sent Cuntrump money.
Yep, like the Hunter Biden trial.
Awesome Tacos, simply awesome.
It's hilarious how some know absolutely nothing about the matter at hand and double down on their ignorance (name one person convicted for 17-152).
We may not always agree on politics, but you absolutely nailed that post.
Oddly you still insist that hearsay is fact. Judge Judy would toss you out of court in a nanosecond.
Isn't it amazing how just a little bit of research can turn up the most wonderous of things?
I don’t know if we’re miscommunicating or what. Trump was convicted of falsifying business records. That crime is a felony if he did it trying to do some other crime.
The jury was not expected to return a verdict on that other crime because it doesn’t matter if the defendant succeeded in that effort - just that he tried to.
Prosecutors had three possible theories of intended criminal wrongdoing. One was federal election law - specifically, the Federal Election Campaign Act. A second was state election law - the aforementioned 17-152. A third was a state tax crime that he knowingly submitted false information in relation to his tax returns. The jury did not have to agree on which law he was trying to break.
Yes, and that other crime was violating 17-152. It's the predicate crime. If the jury did not find he violated 17.152, he could not be found guilty of 175.1
e jury was not expected to return a verdict on that other crime
They couldn't because the SOL had expired as it is a misdemeanor with a 2 year SOL. The whole case consists of bootstrapping misdemeanor offenses with expired SOLs into a felony by combining them to avoid the SOL.
. Prosecutors had three possible theories of intended criminal wrongdoing. One was federal election law - specifically, the Federal Election Campaign Act. A second was state election law - the aforementioned 17-152.
This is 100% wrong, but understandable given the prosecution's refusal to specify the second crime in the indictment and the Judge allowing it not to be specified until trial. Just read the jury instructions. The other crime is 17.152. To find a violation of 17.152, the Judge gave the jury three options. I will quote again from the jury instructions:
The Prosecution's theory is this:
Trump committed a misdemeanor bookkeeping violation.
It becomes a felony if a second crime can be proven.
The second crime is the misdemeanor 17.152 (conspiracy to prevent or promote an election of a person)
To find a violation of 17.152, the jury can pick between these three options:
1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act
otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business
records; or (3) violation of tax laws.
Which is 100% legal.
It’s unlikely they would even bother to prosecute misdemeanors, but they do prosecute this specific felony by attaching to underlying crimes all the time.
Yes. We agree on this. Everything beyond this is either semantics or you just hating the truth of the case.
You are complaining about a very common legal procedure. I don’t know what else to tell you. The universe will not always unfold in the way you want.
I never suggested it wasn’t. It just underlines the flimsiness of the charges.
Lol. The DA ordered his staff to find a crime to charge Trump with. And here we are. 34 felonies that consist of two misdemeanors which aren’t even prosecutable because of the SOL. No one else would ever be prosecuted for this as the Clinton campaign can attest.
No. You’ve made repeated errors about what the prosecution was required to prove. Some ding dongs might not understand this, but you should be able to read the jury instructions and comprehend that Trump could not be found guilty without the jury finding he violated 17-152. Period.
To reiterate, no one has ever been convicted of violating 17-152, the violation that made this prosecution possible.
Yet again, you pivot to a straw man. If convictions under 17-152 are common, by all means demonstrate it. That's what started this, and all these posts later you've not shown a single conviction. All you've done is deflect, including using a demonstrably wrong claim that the jury didn't have to find Trump violated 17-152 to convict him. .
Continually complaining about something legal is suggesting it’s not legal. Your whole approach to to this case suggest you think that the prosecution was illegal.
Trump got a fair trial and a jury found him guilty. Don’t just look to the DA.
That is simply not true, and you can look it up. I’m tired of doing your research for you.
For the millionth time, he was neither charged nor convicted of that code. It’s only relevant to making the case a felony, and all that was required was that the jury belief that was his intent - not that he actually did it.. I will ignore you if you keep trying to argue a settled issue.
You have no valid complaint about any part of this case.
Nonsense. It's not difficult to understand that the prosecution of an ex-President has all sorts of angles and dimensions besides the strict legality of it . Ask Leon Jaworski. Here, the only thing I was discussing was the fact that no one has ever been convicted under 17-152. That and asking you to show a conviction was all I wrote in the first post . Instead of simply saying X was convicted, you've piled so many strawman on top of deflections that you've turned your responses into a mountain of irrelevancies.
rump got a fair trial and a jury found him guilty.
Lol. First, off the fair trial notion is absurd, but let's stay on track. .
hat is simply not true, and you can look it up. I’m tired of doing your research for you.
You must know more than Judge Merchan, New York election law experts and all the reporting in this case. They've been unable to cite a conviction. Since I can't prove a negative, as I said in my first post if it's as common as you make it out to be , it should be easy for you to do so. Odd that the Judge was unaware of these convictions that you have knowledge of, though.
e was neither charged nor convicted of that code
Get that strawman! As I've explained already, he could not be charged or convicted of 17-152 because the SOL expired years ago. 17-152 is the required predicate crime necessary for conviction. What part of this aren't you understanding?
It’s only relevant to making the case a felony
Lol. No shit. That's why it's so important. The business records case can't be charged as a misdemeanor because the SOL expired years ago, so the prosecution needed a means to create a felony (voila, a misdemeanor that no one else has been convicted of).
and all that was required was that the jury belief that was his intent - not that he actually did it.
Words have meaning:
Although you must conclude unanimously that the
defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any
person to a public office by unlawful means...
n determining whether the defendant conspired to
promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office
by unlawful means
Do you see any word modifying the words "conspired to promote or prevent the election" in the jury instructions about what the jury specifically was required to find? I
I'll rely on the actual jury instructions as to what the jury was required to find.
e no valid complaint about any part of this case.
I'll take that for what's it worth from someone who three weeks after verdict who is still claiming that 17-152 was one of "three possible theories of intended criminal wrongdoing."
A charge that virtually nobody ever gets charged for.
At least not for a lame little .38 snubby revolver!
A pussy’s gun? What about the auto in a Hunter selfie on his laptop!
Biden can't run on his record; so all he and Democrats can do is attack Trump.
If that was all it was it would just by typical Democrat BS.
Abusing the power of office with the FBI, IRS, DOJ, and AG/DA's at the state level with lawfare is beyond the pale.
Democrats can take Trump completely out of context and use only a small portion of what he said in attack ads all they want.
Four more years of their rule is something this country with not withstand. If Democrats are not stopped now they will be emboldened to use the same tactics against all of their political opponents. This isn't Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran. No matter how badly Democrats want to make it so.
What kind of person does this nonsense appeal to ?
Pull up the full damn quote.
Don't be unethical and lazy like the party you support.
This is from Trumps fund raising website.
I dont know what "quote" you are looking for.
2.2.2
a fool
This kind:
Yes he can.
In response to the relentless Trump assault on reality?
That comment is delusional.
Maybe they learned it from Previous GOP campaigns?
Delusional comments bordering on hysteria.
It is sad. So sad.
It's a sad sad situation and it's getting more and more absurd.
It truly is.
It's a terrible situation and we must remain vigilant in confronting that danger.
Interesting take. Does Trump run on his record? Wouldn’t you agree that all he does is attack Biden?
He can't run on his record. He is a disgrace.
“He can't run on his record.”
Hence the revenge and retribution tour.
In 2016 he tapped into the dark side and invigorated their long standing frustration with easy bumper sticker sloganeering: lock her up, build the wall, drain the swamp…No such chanting today.
In some ways, he has become hillary…no real policy or platform in relying on the weakness of the opponent, and narcissistically focused solely on winning the presidency.
Oh, not to mention he is a convicted felon.
Past is prologue and ‘Hello Wisconsin!’
There's a whole list of hoaxes on NT that we're allegedly responsible for and #34 isn't.
The projection, denial, and delusion is pathological
Democrats can take Trump completely out of context and use only a small portion of what he said in attack ads all they want.
Is this a new concept for you? Replace the word “Democrats” with the word “candidates”, and the word “Trump” with the word “opponents”. I’m sure you’d prefer Biden to be milquetoast and meager, but he’s on the attack with a massive arsenal of Trump’s weaknesses.
He is
"but he’s on the attack with a massive arsenal of Trump’s weaknesses."
Hilarious. He probably doesn't even know where he is at this moment.
He is? I thought you guys said he must be on Hunter’s drugs because he was so aggressive. Make up your minds.
Don't know who these "you guys " are, but you won't be able to find where I said that because I never did.
Biden has a long record of helping regular Americans.
Trump has a record of helping multinational billionaires.
I hope he sheds more light on his brilliant plan to eliminate income tax and replace it with tariffs. I’m sure his supporters are excited about having no taxes but paying triple for everything they need to live and then somehow blaming Joe Biden for the increase. The ultra wealthy will be even more excited at their prospects of turning from millionaire to billionaire, or billionaire to trillionaire.
I think he needs to do time. Anything less than incarceration and he will go around claiming he was exonerated.
Not gonna happen. This whole sham trial was a political hit job from the get go for all the reasons cited in previous threads and in the media by legal experts. The left got a guilty verdict for a statute limited misdemeanor that magically evolved into a 5th class felony for an alleged crime that no one has precisely defined. That verdict has amounted to an increase or popularity for Trump. The progressives have fucked up once again.
Your conception of the legal aspects are all wrong. For illumination, see 2.1.10.
Trump's intent was never proven, only assumed. It's highly improbable he even knew that such an obscure New York law existed. And what was the other crime?
"Penal Law Section 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."
You also said trump would never be convicted.
Signed,
Hunter Biden.
Ok, Greg, since it was proven that he did it, what was, (in your opinion), his intent?
No it hasn't. The polls are relatively flat and unchanged for months if you pay attention to them.
Polls | FiveThirtyEight
has Trump at 40.8 and Biden at 40.2.
Never was a more inane comment penned.
"Your Honor, I'm innocent because I didn't know theres a law about it."
It was all criminal to begin with and it became felonies when additional crimes were committed and criminal conspiracies were enacted in order to cover up the original crimes...
I don’t know what you mean by that. The jury could not have returned guilty verdicts for felonies without finding that he had falsified business records with specific criminal intent. Their options regarding that specificity - including the election law - were made clear to the jury.
First, ignorance of the law is not a defense. Second, don’t you think any candidate - not to mention the former president - would know that interfering with an election is a crime?
He never interfered with an election. If you think so, please lay out all the details. It is not a crime if one attempts to influence an election. That's what the Democrats are attempting to do right now.
Keep some perspective. First - that’s not my job. The prosecution made the argument and it’s possible someone on the jury agreed with it. For all I know, they all decided he was guilty because of the tax law.
Second, it doesn’t matter if he succeeded in interfering with the election. What matters is whether or not the jury believed that’s what he was trying to do.
Some pretend to think that not getting away with it - absolves them of their intent to try and get away with it
Most independents and liberals don't involve themselves in polls.
I certainly never do. I just hang up on them.
Why do you believe that?
I took it as most gone wild independents don't swing from poles, but just like
grandpa Munster, they hang from them,
where as eye, see myself hangin around, till my impure
feat touch the fertile grounds
of coffee , n i scream, cause i forgot my spoon, and boots, cause i took a fork, and stabbed myself in the i phoney, just for a few hoots, but feal not wise, just older but for reel, cause the alternative is alternately not positively grounded to the negativity, of a nativity seen from above, but with less love, than a threee
like that whitch i cast upon my pollster's whilst phishing, for that , that tat witch does lure,
the impure causes the impurities i n joy chattin like a Katty Chathy till Trump grabs me
like a pussy
would, and some get hung up on, hang ups, by pols bought to be brought forth, on the premise , that they promise to never get hung up on by a crank caller maid to make me holler for a dollar while making a death bed room to sleep around the coffee grounds to call fuzz, on a peach, as they cop a plea to please call police men and women to have a poll about a pole
least man for rent till evicted by a convicted felon who fell off, his pole position took on the pole most leased the least, i could due, no ?
and Drinker, don't thinker this cannabis and alcohaul fueled ranting non scense is for you, just babbling like a tired brook kings in stitute, that consumed too much Absolute
I 100% agree, the question is how much. I think 6 months is more than fair.
I also 100% agree. I think a sentence of at least one year and a day is appropriate for 34 felony convictions, absolutely no showing of remorse and the complete and utter contempt he has shown for the judicial system.
Well, you're the lawyer, hard for me to disagree.
Do I see him doing more than 6 months? No. I think Judge Merchan has been more than lenient with regards to the gag order violations though... A year does seem more fair.
I also suspect he would not serve more than six months, even with a longer sentence, which he richly deserves. I'm good with his sentence being as long as Judge Merchan might determine is appropriate, but I do think some time served is necessary. As we know, prisoners are often released well short of serving their entire sentence for "good behavior" in some jurisdictions, or for other reasons, although Donald Trump and "good behavior" is an obvious oxymoron (emphasis on moron). I don't know if "good behavior" is grounds for early release in New York.
good behavior for contempt of court? genius
Good behavior for release has to do with a prisoner's conduct while incarcerated.
I can't recall Trump acting in any way so far that could be considered "good behavior" about anything.
emphasis on moron
Absolutely. I know it’s not the same jurisdiction, but I keep thinking if Martha Stewart gets 5 months, Trump should get at least that much.
Martha Stewart should never have been sent to jail for what she did.
And neither should Trump
For 34 felony convictions?
I think so.
Yes, 34 convictions for one act that used eleven steps.
Much like Martha, who got hurt? No one. Just like his bullshit "conviction" for cooking the books.
So if I get drunk and drive my car into your car, and no one is hurt, there is no crime?
I didn't know that was a pre-requisite to be found guilty of 34 felonies.
What the fuck does that have to do with #34 and his 34 felonies?
If Teddy had been driving a VW Beetle that night, he might have been president.
Under what legal theory?
Only if you conjure him up in a seance.
A lifelong scofflaw should do much more than a year. Finally.
How do we tell our kids that crime doesn't pay if they see it does?
If Trump doesn't do time, how is that a deterrent to others?
A serious example needs to be made of this career criminal/liar.
The world is watching to see if democracy/rule of law actually works.
He has several more felony trials on deck (serial criminal).
That is skirting the issue and not an answer.
Get a sense of humor.
Your comments on this thread cited below contain no reasoned commentary.
Comment 4.2.16 is trite and meaningless nonsense.
Comments 4.2.20 and 4.2.23 are merely prattle with no discernible value or relevance in the context of any of the discussion.
Your Comment 4.2.25 is just one really weird comment. Not only is it internally inconsistent and completely devoid of logic, I've never read a comment that is so deeply psychologically conflicted.
Carry on!
I was speaking from my amateur legal point of view. Personally, I think trump should do 20 years.
You destroyed MY property. You can't be that obtuse.............SMH
Who, or what, was hurt?
That's a good point.
It is a very good point.
[✘]
[✘]
I doubt he'll be sent to any prison. I'm sure that any incarceration if imposed would be house arrest, probably to the house and grounds of Mar a Lago while wearing a GPS anklet. It would just be an enforced golf vacation.
Pity, Sing Sing is perfect for trump.
The correct punishment for him would be a situation where he is unable to communicate in any way with anybody. What a deprivation that would be.
Your Honor, as a term and condition of the confinement, the People request that the defendant be ordered to remain within the confines of his house and not venture outside to play golf.
But wouldn't that contravene the law against cruel and unusual punishment?
Lol. It might feel like that if you really love golf.
But more seriously, I suspect a lot of people don’t realize that normally perfectly legal behavior is often restricted as a term of probation or parole.
What do you think would be appropriate and adequate punishment for his crimes?
Honestly, I wouldn’t want to just throw out a random number. There are always legal guidelines for this stuff. The judge will review briefs from both sides and a probation report. There are usually long lists of aggravating or mitigating circumstances to consider, and this applies to both the crime and the defendant.
If I were really acting as a judge, I would follow these steps just as with any other case.
LOL. A very superior non-answer answer.
At least have a USGA marshal count his every stroke. A fate worse than death for Trump; the lifelong golf cheat. The world would finally know that he is a loser and cheat at golf as well as everything else.
He owns a Boeing 757 with a range of 3900 miles (6300 km). No bail!