Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Options
1108109111113114165

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    a list witnesses, yes. nothing else about them though



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,598 ✭✭✭amandstu


    Anything apart from the lawyer story to put flesh on the Weisselberg speculation?



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,692 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Just the online media sources. The withdrawal of paid-for lawyers from Weisselberg was in the online media last week before MSNBC ran its story. It might be part of the war between media sources trying to unsettle the other party, pun intended.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,589 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake




  • Registered Users Posts: 36,082 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    When you see the Left and Right alike calling this case against Trump as a serious over reach you just know it will be dismissed at first attempt, Bragg has a lot to answer for on this, he acted like Putin in using his power to bring charges against a rival. This is not how the US should be acting, it's so dangerous.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 21,453 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    However, unlike Putin, if the evidence says Trump is not guilty, he wont go to jail. Bit of a difference.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,539 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Who on the left has said this? Claims require citation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Have you bothered to read what he was charged with yet?



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,379 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Do you notice that the DAs that trump is targeting in his cases all happen to be people of colour and trump is calling them racist. Your thoughts on that fact?



  • Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭Guildenstern


    I think even CNN admitting it's a flimsy case, says it all. Last week was just theatre.

    The other cases coming up against Trump look to be more serious hurdles but his ability to play up the victim over the next year could be more than enough to secure the nomination.

    All in all, from where are looking, you'd think he wouldn't be able to bag the swing States. For the GOP, I'd say De Santos could do, but will he get the chance.

    Trump to get the nomination but not ultimately the White House?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,379 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs




  • Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭Guildenstern


    Apologies. Was watching their coverage during the week. That was my take on their summary. Quite a fair analysis and went against the grain that their just a Trump hating entity.

    Much prefer plugging into CNN for US news than say, getting the RTE version.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,306 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    A couple of pages ago you said there were “No crimes” in the charges, now you think it’ll be dismissed at “the first attempt”.


    You haven’t a bulls notion about any of this. A grand journey was in panelled and decided that an indictment was warranted to m 34 charges. Now that doesn’t mean Trump is guilty, but it gives a probable conviction rate of over 90%.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,306 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    I find this “It’s a flimsy case” idea very interesting. Cohen went to jail for this “flimsy case” already. A grand jury found and indictment is warranted. Can’t be that flimsy.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users Posts: 11,379 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Again you haven't shown any citation, just your opinion. So it's your opinion that cnn are saying it's a weak case, rather than cnn actually saying it



  • Registered Users Posts: 36,082 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    It was big news the day of the arrest, and middle page news the day after the indictment was released, as no one, even Trump rivals could see anything in it, misdemeanours as a push, felony offences, no chance of conviction



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,539 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    I asked already but who on The Left, are Trump's rivals who have dismissed this case? You keep saying these things and offering no proof.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,926 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    Even though someone has already been imprisoned for the very same crime Trump is accused of?

    It died off because there's nothing more to report on. Do you think the news networks won't be covering the trial?



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,306 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    He was charged with 34 felonies. Don’t you understand that? I can’t figure out if you’re being disingenuous or blind.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,707 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Trump was indicted in a state court that is outside the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS, which means Trump cannot appeal to his mates in the SC.

    The Georgian case can go ahead because it will be a case that does not make history being the first to indict a former US President. The known evidence is on a recording of a telephone call made by Trump to a Georgian (Republican elected) official demanding that he find Trump 11,000 votes to fix the election in Trumps favour. I'd say banged to rights.

    Other cases will plod along.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,692 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Seeing as Trump will/may be facing trial in a non-federal court in New York on what are described as misdemeanor charges [34 in number] it's worth noting that while they aren't felony charges, misdemeanor charges - depending on their class - can individually earn a convicted person a locked-up time of between 2 weeks and nearly one year. Trump is facing 34 charges so if he's convicted of a large number and the judge sitting in the court decides the offences committed by Trump are serious enough and is convinced Trump knew in advance that the offences were criminal in nature, there is a fair to middling chance that Trump will spend time residing in a state prison, even if it's only while his legal team launch an appeal and [maybe] get him bailed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,453 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    I was corrected on this a few days ago. It's 11,780 votes he was looking for😉



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,107 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2



    I seen a poll where something like 60% feel its politically motivated and I agree. The problem however for Trump is while many may think this is flimsy in that poll the majority also agreed! Why?

    Because while they may feel its soft they want him got on something and you can't blame anyone, the man has spent decades saying FU to the law etc. Its basically Al Capone taxes again!

    However from what I have seen and not just in the echo chambers their is really serious stuff coming for him regarding Georgia and another rape case.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    The 34 charges that trump faces are misdemeanours that become felonies if the illegal conduct was used to cover up another crime.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,692 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Ta for that. It might be worth while knowing if any of his lawyers - given their stated profession - knew enough to see he was engaged in criminal behaviour but did nothing to stop him or advise the court that their client was engaging in criminal offences while they were representing him before the same court. Cohen did prison time for lying to congress about the Russian interference with the 2016 election and his former client.

    From 2021: “I will not cease my commitment to law enforcement. I will continue to provide information, testimony, documents and my full cooperation on all ongoing investigations to ensure that others are held responsible for their dirty deeds,” Cohen told reporters outside the New York City federal courthouse after his sentence was officially concluded.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    I don't think any of his current lawyers represented him at the time of the offences. Though I'm not sure why you that lawyers are obliged to tell the police that their clients are committing crimes.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,636 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Stewart gives a very good breakdown of why this isn't bigger news. The TV news need a moment, a picture to sell the story.

    Trump in an orange jumpsuit would be it. But that didn't happen. Instead all we got was basically a boring legal hearing followed by a wait until December. During which nobody should really comment.

    Even Trump knows that, hence the low key and frankly boring speech in Mar y lago afterward.

    The TV news need an episode of CSI, but this is real life justice which moves slowly, is boring and procedural.

    But while many on the GOP and Trump supporters attempt to claim this is nothing, yet another attack line is gone. He can't claim, well not credibly anyway to anyway but his core supporters, that he is out law and order. That he will 'lock her up'.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,692 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Not the police. The lawyers are part of the US justice system the courts are part of. I was under the impression that lawyers there have an obligation not to get involved in criminal activities their clients are involved in as that would be an act outside any duty of care they have to any client and if they become aware that their client is trying to get them to assist in criminal activities, they would be legally obliged to take steps to avoid their client ensnaring them in such criminal acts.

    Stepping away from defence of a client by asking the court to release them from representation duties of a particular client doesn't quite shout out to the court that the client is doing something unlawful but informs people with a nous that the lawyer knows there is a lawful reason to step away from the client, and not something based on a whim.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,306 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    I could be wrong: but I think a lawyer has to report it if their client intends to commit a crime in future. E.g. if the client says “I’m going to lie on the stand”, they are supposed to report their client for perjury.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,707 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    They cannot report a client for the intention of committing a crime. Their obligation is to advise the client not to do such a thing. Any lawyer worth his salt would never get to the point of knowing their client was in a position to commit perjury to the knowledge of the lawyer. They mat very well suspect their client is guilty, but they would be foolish to get to the point of certainty.

    In other words, the lawyer never asks - 'Well, did you do it?' because the lawyer cannot continue with the client if the answer is 'Yes!'. He is obliged to reduce his defence of the client before the court to just ask for mitigation of the offence. The lawyer in that case would typically come off record and withdraw from the case.



Advertisement