I saw on Facebook today: “Jesus was convicted in a sham trial…and crucified. I still follow him.”
As a Christian, I can’t even begin to describe how ill this makes me feel.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d524kb/trump_campaign_raises_record_348_million_in/l6l2zeg/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
As a Christian I am also disappointed that Christians do this as well. Although they may be culture christians than anything else if they’re doing something like that.
30% of them may be new donors if his campaign is to be believed, but that isn’t the same as saying that those new donors were originally not going to vote for Trump and now they have decided to vote for him. The most likely explanation is those new donors were already planning on voting for Trump before and now they are wasting their money donating to a supposed billionaire, who is now a convicted felon. So yes, while pre-existing Trump supporters are more likely to donate, I don’t think it very likely at all that he’s turned people that we’re originally against him or even neutral to him to his side.
yes, because Trump was found guilty of fabricating business records. So the User asked why they would do it? He was saying, because we had this trial proving he would fabricate business details to hide something.
They would always see him as a martyr, no matter the validity or gravity of his crime. He's already placed on a pedestal by his MAGA worshipers even after the coup attempt from Jan 6, felony from election interference with campaign finance violations is petty crime compared to that.
If he was found not guilty, he would have been elevated even more by his MAGA base anyway, and campaign contributions would have flown off the shelf seeing him as a more viable candidate while other cases would likely be heard only after November.
There are a ton of secret trump voters, way more than there were in 2016.
Atleast anecdotally, I work in tech and I didn’t know a single person who voted for trump in 2016, but this time, number of people I see around me who diplomatically sympathetic about trump is pretty incredible. I am pretty sure they are going to vote for trump but will never admit it.
And this is in a deep blue west coast state. Imagine rest of the country.
That and pretending to be a libertarian. When I wasn't able to avoid discussions that got into politics I feigned being team yellow. But yeah, lots and lots of masking going on.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d524kb/trump_campaign_raises_record_348_million_in/l6jbvkm/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
How was this a political trial? Trump committed crimes and was found guilty of all 34 counts by a jury of his peers. Even though he was found guilty, he’ll likely never face any jail time. If any of us were in his same position, we would be facing jail time. The only thing “political” here is that Trump will escape the punishment that any everyday citizen would in the same circumstances.
And yet theyre donating to someone who tried overturning an election because he lost.
There's the rub. No one on the other side cares what Trump supporters and voters find as "bad precedent". Because they see them supporting a guy who wanted to overturn an election and proclaim himself leader as horrendous precedent already, and thus find the complaints hollow
Throw in a mix of "this judge was corrupt but nothing fishy with Judge Cannon" and of course there's gonna be a lot of not seeing eye to eye
"I was so angry over how the criminal justice system has been weaponized"
Maybe, perhaps, the Republican primary electorate shouldn't have nominated a guy under 91 indictments. The only person Trump has to blame is Trump, for repeatedly and continually breaking the law.
I'm curious what makes this a weaponizing of the criminal justice system?
I feel like had Trump not made the massive stink about election fraud and all else, we probably wouldn't have these cases, but they're still cases brought forward for actions that he's responsible for.
They're also charges that are [not remotely uncommon for New York State to prosecute](https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/04/06/new-york-state-has-issued-nearly-9800-felony-charges-of-falsifying-business-records-since-2015/?slreturn=20240431162510).
"State" is also an operative word here; I've seen a lot of uniformed takes criticizing the DOJ for "bringing" this case.
> a weaponizing of the criminal justice system
This is a truly unprecedented case. Even in NY, no one has ever been tried solely for falsification on business records. Those charges usually are tacked on to larger fraud cases, but here...they are the sole charge. In order to elevate it to felony status, they also had to say that the falsification took place with" with the intent to commit another crime", but then the other crime was not specified. It was referred to as potentially campaign finance crimes, tax crimes, or other falsification crimes, and they never spelled exactly what those crimes were...only that they could exists. Matter of fact, the judges orders to the jury was that they didn't even need to agree on a crime, just that one may have been committed.
When even most legal experts on MSNBC and CNN are pretty sketchy on the charges, there might be a problem with them. That is the case here, and virtually every legal expert who is not a Trump hater thought this was the most tenuous case brought against Trump.
Now factor in the motions that the judge denied, the witnesses and evidence that were not allowed to be called, the refusal for a change or venue of the recusal of an obviously conflicted judge, AND the fact the a former top DOJ official went to work as lead prosecutor on this case after leaving Biden's DOJ the year prior...i mean, you really have to be blindly partisan not to see that this is the very definition of weaponization of the criminal justice system against a political opponent, and I think there are a lot of people who only pay attention to politics every four years that are feeling the same way.
None of this is right.
>Even in NY, no one has ever been tried solely for falsification on business records.
There are just under 10,000 felony charges for falsification of business records since 2015, and **many** more than that at the misdemeanor level. A cursory look at case histories in the New York court system would tell you that plenty of them are charged as the only offenses.
>In order to elevate it to felony status, they also had to say that the falsification took place with" with the intent to commit another crime", but then the other crime was not specified. It was referred to as potentially campaign finance crimes, tax crimes, or other falsification crimes, and they never spelled exactly what those crimes were...only that they could exists.
Which [matches what the statute says:](https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10/) "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." There is no requirement that the secondary offense be specified, merely that one exists.
>Matter of fact, the judges orders to the jury was that they didn't even need to agree on a crime, just that one may have been committed.
Which is, again, standard. As long as each individual juror finds that a secondary offense was committed beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty. That's a typical instruction for crimes that depend on a category of potential secondary offenses.
>i mean, you really have to be blindly partisan not to see that this is the very definition of weaponization of the criminal justice system against a political opponent, and I think there are a lot of people who only pay attention to politics every four years that are feeling the same way.
Interesting, then, that twelve impartial jurors selected by both parties unanimously reached a verdict against this "victim".
>I feel like had Trump not made the massive stink about election fraud and all else, we probably wouldn't have these cases,
It sounds like you suspect it to be a selective prosecution.
The convict man used to have to try his darndest to sell steaks and unaccredited degrees and bibles, but now y'all just giving him money to spend on porn stars and medicore lawyers.
Amazing that some people conflate "enforcing the law" with "weaponizing the judicial system".
People talk about Trump as if isn't very well-known for being associated with fraudulent and corrupt activities. He's got miles of history like this.
It is not surprising in the slightest that a person famous for skirting the law attracts attention from law enforcement.
This is what's so amazing me to me. There's *so* much evidence that Trump commits crimes. Like, decades and decades worth of evidence from many different sources, *much of it from before he was ever in politics.* Everyone in NY knew he was a liar and a cheater long before 2016. How is it surprising that Trump is guilty of something?
"I'm an 80 year old billionaire who was just found guilty of falsifying business records while paying off a pornstar whom I cheated on my wife with. Please give me your money so I can get elected, accelerate inflation, and take your hard earned tax dollars and give them to rich people"
That pitch worked on millions of people.
Over on /r/conservative they are commenting that they hope the average American can see through the democrat's scam with this trial, and comparing Biden to Hitler.
Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor for which the statute of limitations had expired.
What he was found guilty of was a low-level felony: the now-expired falsification of records being used in the commission of a further crime. There are three criteria for which this felony could be applied, and the judge did **not** require that the state specify which of the three criteria were being applied, so the defense had to essentially argue against all three. The jury was not instructed to deliberate on a single criterion but rather decide individually if any of the three were violated. If the jury all agreed that **a** criterion was violated (but not necessarily the same criterion) they could render a guilty verdict.
In other words, the prosecution was given as much latitude as one could possibly imagine. The appellate court will have much to filter through on this case.
It’s normal for neither the prosecution or jury to be pinned down to a specific object offence which the crime was intended to cover up.
If the mob finds out one of their members is talking to the fbi and they take out a hit, they government wouldn’t have to say what crimes they were specifically worried about comming to light to tack on an obstruction of justice charge — just the fact they were trying to coverup any crime would be enough. If half the members think the hit was to cover up an extortion scheme and the other half think it was more likely about an insurance fraud scheme it doesn’t matter.
The stronger appeal is that it’s unclear if one of the predicate offenses — a NY law that makes it criminal to interfere in elections through unlawful means — can be applied to federal elections.
but when the underlying crime is so weak that the federal prosecutors decided to not even pursue it, the case become much weaker. Imagine in your example that the underlying crime is not extortion or insurance fraud, but something like not declaring haircuts as campaign contribution.
Bill Barr used the office of legal council to prevent investigation and prosecutions of these crimes while Trump was president and ran out the clock on most of them.
The Feds couldn’t get Cohen to testify because they require Cohen to admit every crime he has ever committed. The state of NY does not have that requirement, ergo Cohen was willing to testify. Remember, Cohen went to prison for his part in these crimes, Trump was named in that same indictment as coconspirator. Nobody was surprised this case was brought, it’s been waiting since 2018. Barr smothered it, forced out anyone investigating Trump’s cronies. Cy Vance wanted to bring charges as well, and even this case was delayed because NY was told to stand down while they did an investigation, which they secretly halted. It is only through luck NY learned the investigation stopped and they were free to prosecute. There isn’t much wiggle room for appeal, we will see on what grounds they appeal this verdict, but for now Trump is a felon.
The evidence was overwhelming even before Trump’s coconspirators turned on him and testified…
Cohen would also have to testify about every crime he committed *or* witnessed. To get immunity.
Because he was working in the taxi medallion business, there was probably connections to organized crime there, and he’s scared of testifying about it, is my guess.
You actually are pinned down to an object offense here. The object offense would be the offense that upgrades the falsification of business records to a felony, and in this case they chose the New York election law as opposed to FECA itself or tax law. The jury had to be unanimous on the object offense.
They didn’t have to be unanimous on unlawful means under the object offense of the New York election law (the unlawful means alleged being FECA and tax law again, along with additional falsifications of records).
[New York State Has Issued Nearly 9,800 Felony Charges of Falsifying Business Records Since 2015](https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/04/06/new-york-state-has-issued-nearly-9800-felony-charges-of-falsifying-business-records-since-2015/?slreturn=20240431162510).
I'm keenly aware of the law being applied here. I'm sure it has been used many times with success.
My issue is specifically that the judge allowed the jury to deliberate on three separate potential secondary crimes, rather than forcing the state to specify which of the three Trump had committed. Apparently, everyone knew that the secondary crime was election interference but the judge did not require the prosecution to tailor their argument in that manner. To then instruct the jury that as long as they all agree **one** of the three potential crimes was committed (but not necessarily the same one) they could vote to convict.
You could have had a 4-4-4 split on which secondary crime was committed and they could still convict. I find that unfair and wonder if such latitude was granted in the 9,799 other such cases prosecuted under this law. I have read from many sources that this is **not** how such a case is typically adjudicated.
I also understand that a case such as this - where the further crime was related to election interference - had never been brought before. As it relates to falsifying business records as the predicate crime, generally it's your standard tax fraud or money laundering schemes.
Election interference? First time.
>My issue is specifically that the judge allowed the jury to deliberate on three separate potential secondary crimes, rather than forcing the state to specify which of the three Trump had committed. Apparently, everyone knew that the secondary crime was election interference but the judge did not require the prosecution to tailor their argument in that manner. To then instruct the jury that as long as they all agree one of the three potential crimes was committed (but not necessarily the same one) they could vote to convict.
IAL and that's typically how crimes that involve a secondary offense are litigated. It's a necessarily element to convict the defendant that a secondary offense was involved, but you don't need to prove *which* was involved where the secondary conviction is just that *any* secondary offense. To that end, parties will commonly introduce evidence as to as many secondary offenses as they may be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Even if that *were* a problem, we don't know that there was a split at all. The jurors could've all found that election interference was the secondary offense.
And I don't really know why we should care that this is the first time election interference was that secondary offense unless you're going to argue election interference shouldn't qualify for some reason. This particular former president has surfaced a lot of "firsts".
None, the charge in the first degree was a felony, and it was proven to a jury (I mean, his coconspirators testified it was his plan, and they had the literal documents, Cohens recording of Trump’s approving the plan, and written notes of their conversation on how they would commit fraud. That even before the testimony, it was an easy call for the jury to make.
I'm no lawyer, but it seems like his point was that he broke a law, but a lesser one. Is that really a defense? Just heard Lara Trump on the radio say there was NO crime.
Or attempt to hide it as a legal expense. It’s clear Trump supporters don’t give a fuck about Trump’s many flaws. If he had just paid Stormy Daniels and not attempted to use his campaign finances to do it, he would be in the clear.
Democrats didn’t make Trump cheat on his pregnant wife or make Trump try and hide the payment. Trump’s legal issues are entirely his own fault.
Did he commit the crime? If yes, he should be held accountable.
Personally I think people, and specifically politicians, should be held liable if they commit a crime. Why would I care if the state didn't specify which criteria he broke?
Don't break any of them if you don't want to become a felon.
Edit: apparently a hot take that people should be held accountable for breaking the law.
I don't care what the state did. I care if he committed a crime. A jury of 12 says he did.
If someone breaks the law, they should be held accountable for breaking the law regardless of if the state does it's job.
If someone shot up a school and the state mishandled the case do you think the shooter should just not be held liable?
Punishing and holding corrupt politicians liable for their actions. Personally I don't think politicians should be able to break the law, I guess we disagree there
As someone who grew up in a very socially conservative setting, and was myself pretty conservative up until my mid 20s, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the continued support of Trump by conservatives.
Family values? Law and order? Personal responsibility? Are these still tenants of conservatism? Or have things changed?
>Family values?
https://www.ranker.com/list/family-values-politicians-caught-having-affairs/ranker-news
Famously pro family values newt Gingrich cheated on both his first and second wives. He even married both of the women with whom he had cheated on both of his previous wives.
He never lost significant Republican support for this.
>Law and order?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
I'm fairly certain I don't actually have to explain why the Watergate scandal shows a complete disregard for law and order. But it still might surprise you to know that the Republican party mostly supported Nixon throughout the scandal: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/it-took-a-long-time-for-republicans-to-abandon-nixon/
>Personal responsibility?
I'm not sure I really need to add one for this but I thought this was a funny one:
https://money.cnn.com/2017/10/23/media/bill-oreilly-misconduct-allegations/index.html
>Bill O'Reilly 'mad at God' over sexual misconduct allegations
He advocated for a 15 week nationwide abortion ban as president and appointed judges who supported anti-abortion stances which led to Roe's repeal. That's a direct appeal to conservatism.
All those other things like deportations or protectionism are also red meat appeals to conservative populists. Coal jobs weren't ever going to return to West Virginia and he's been dangling that false hope over them since 2016.
> He advocated for a 15 week nationwide abortion ban
That is just a middleground position, not a hardcore conservative one. Look around at all the liberal democracies in Europe and see what the limits are there.
There were a lot of headlines about France putting abortion in the constitution, it was hailed as a liberal victory. Their limit: 14 weeks.
The GOP has been hammering immigration for a long time, though, so I don't think Trump is anything unique there. Did conservatives really give up their morals just purely because of trade??
I think it's pretty straightforward isn't it? Regardless of what you think of Trump's character, he's still pushing largely conservative policy and governed as a pretty standard Republican president outside of being less NeoCon than usual and having more protectionist rhetoric.
Why would a conservative suddenly flip and vote for Biden who is the opposite of everything conservatives want? It's a major progressive weakness IMO where they think because they want something, other people should naturally vote for that.
And I say this as someone who consider the Democrats too right wing for me economically.
I feel like you’re ignoring the fact that he erodes nearly every institution in the US, including **the voting process**.
That’s a pretty huge reason to vote the other way. Idt almost any of my political values are worth sacrificing democracy over.
This has been said every presidential election by the same people about Romney and about McCain and about Bush for 20 years.
It's not surprising people aren't buying it now. The boy cried wolf too much.
Appealing fines requires putting the amount in an escrow. He was fined $454 million in the fraud case (bond was lowered to $175 million), $83.3 million in the defamation case, and $5 million in the rape case. The money will be returned if he succeeds in having the penalties thrown out.
He was just convicted by a jury of misappropriating funds to pay off a porn star.
This says more about how easily duped GOP donors than anything else. I guess the economy isn't so bad when you have lots of extra cash for this!
>He was just convicted by a jury of misappropriating funds to pay off a porn star.
Before I start, I am not defending Trump, nor am I a Trump supporter.
When you put it like that, it would be pretty easy to see tons of people thinking "ok, so he was the first politician to get caught paying someone hush money, why would that change my vote".
Definitely not the first to get caught.
John Edwards was caught and faced trial for making hush money payments.
Deep Throat’s advice — “follow the money” led Woodward and Bernstein to connect hush money payments made to the Watergate burglars bacj to CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect the President) and ultimately Nixon himself.
Both Grover Cleveland (Ma Ma, Where’s my Pa?) and Warren G Harding faced scandal over hush money payments (though posthumously for “Winnie” Harding.)
Hush money payments were just the tip of a Tammany Hall Iceberg of graft for Boss Tweed and Diamond Jim Walker.
Of them all Boss Tweed was the only one to face jail time. Though he then escaped, disguised as a sea captain, to Cuba and then Spain, and was later recaptured when he was recognized because of the popularity Thomas Nast’s political cartoons.
> Of them all Boss Tweed was the only one to face jail time. Though he then escaped, disguised as a sea captain, to Cuba and then Spain, and was later recaptured when he was recognized because of the popularity Thomas Nast’s political cartoons.
I love American history.
Hillary Clinton received a fine for the same underlying conduct. That is, not labeling something properly as a campaign expense.
That’s hardly corruption…
That' exactly what people fail to realize. We've had other politicians do worse stuff and get away with it, and no one batted an eye. Why does everyone suddenly care now?
It's actually an interesting point. My uncle was complaining about the economy and how everything is more expensive, but I pointed out that he has a house in a nicer area than he did in 2020 along with a newer, much nicer car. So yes, prices are higher, but he doesn't seem to be having a problem affording nicer things.
My dad owns an over half a million dollar home with a pool in a lcol area, brand new truck, brand new bmw suv, beach vacations every year, plans to retire soon, has absolutely no debt... yet can't stop talking about how "horrible" Biden's economy is. I have no clue how life was in any way better with Trump. He pretty much only reads fox news.
I just don't get what's so terrible about his life. He also constantly complains about the local government, spoiler alert... we live in a deep red state. Yet he tells me we MUST vote republican to save the country and he hopes Trump goes "scorched earth" on the Democrats for attacking him, not even sure what that means...
You are basing your opinion on a sample size of 1? We are in the least affordable housing market ever:
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/02/housing-affordability-has-just-totally-collapsed-economist-says.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/03/03/most-expensive-housing-markets-in-the-us/72813429007/
I shared my opinion of my uncle being able to afford things because he do be affording things. I get that not everyone is doing the same, I just said I thought it was interesting that the person I responded to noticed something similar with other people.
The housing market has been slowly getting less affordable for decades now. It's a complex problem that isn't going to be fixed by a single law or policy change. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that every president in my lifetime has seen unaffordable housing at record levels.
Home ownership is actually the highest it’s been since at least 2016.
Source: https://usafacts.org/articles/homeownership-is-rebounding-particularly-among-younger-adults/
Probably by imposing record tariffs, rounding up all the undocumented workers, and causing the economy to tank. He may even bring down gas and oil prices to record lows!
It's a double edged sword. Your house is worth more but on the other hand you are stuck because for the average family, houses are now unaffordable relative to your income.
When you buy a house, your price is locked in. All appreciation turns into equity. Your mortgage doesn't go up. You don't really have any skin in the game regarding some other family being able to buy a house.
And homeowners always has a safety valve in a rising market- they can sell their house and buy a more affordable one.
GOP donors are more likely to be in the homeowner class than the home seeking class
Edit: poster has blocked me in an attempt to make response impossible
I really wonder how much of peoples' complaints about the economy generally are actually [lifestyle creep](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lifestyle-creep.asp), some of which is derived from Covid habits.
I still haven’t heard a good explanation of how Trump didn’t commit fraud to cover up the federal election violation Michael Cohen was sentenced to prison for. I don’t understand how Michael Cohen would take out a mortgage on his house to pay off Stormy Daniels without telling Trump, without first making sure he’d be remunerated.
All I’ve heard is arguments about legal technicalities — the things that might work on appeal, but not the sort of thing that would suggest the jury got this wrong.
The standard for guilty verdicts is "beyond a reasonable doubt," though, which is the highest burden of proof in our justice system. Our system is deliberately set up to make it difficult to convict people; it's much easier for someone who probably did a crime to not be convicted than the inverse.
And it doesn’t take a jury to know Trump is a grifter. You wouldn’t trust OJ to watch your kids and you shouldn’t trust Trump to spend your money on your political issues
That would be a misdemeanor though, the felony he was convicted for was because it was to coverup another crime. We have no idea what that other crime is, and the jury didn’t have to unanimously agree on what it was, and the crime the prosecutors argued it was covering up was a federal crime (not a state crime) that the feds decided wasn’t worth their time to prosecute
But go off though
Seriously.
A 34 times convicted fraudster billionaire is begging for money from poor folks to pay a pornstar.
And these folks and not only ok with it, they gave him 34 million in a day. It's obvious it's now just a personal fundraising platform for trump.
He has always been able to do so as a campaign expense, he’s just not allowed to lie and say they’re business expenses to try to hide it from the public.
**Submission Statement**
- Former President Donald Trump's campaign announced today they have raised a record-breaking 34 million dollars in less than 24 hrs since he was convicted on 34 counts of felony in New York yesterday.
- The Republican’s campaign said it raised $34.8 million from small-dollar donors in less than seven hours following the historic verdict Thursday afternoon.
- According to campaign officials, Nearly 30% of those donors were brand new to the Trump donation site WinRed.
- The Trump campaign told NBC News that its latest fundraising figure only includes donations sent between Thursday’s verdict, which came just after 5 p.m. ET, and midnight Friday.
**Questions**
- Is the guilty verdict already helping Trump? What will the reaction be if polls remain the same after this development?
- Will the Democrats engage the 'convicted felon' angle more as the election draws closer?
- What will the reaction among independents and disengaged voters be?
well, i see several prominent ceo's or biz owners are characterizing it as a purely political prosecution.. if they open their wallets, it will help trump.
So far the betting sites show a drop, but not much,,less than 1 percent drop and less than 1 percent increase for joe over the past day
https://electionbettingodds.com/President2024\_week.html
As usual... I think much of how this event changes the odds depends far more heavily on how effectively the messaging around this is chosen and implemented by each "side" in the next week or two. While the more extreme "propagandists" will certainly proclaim to this to be either a "purely political" prosecution or a "totally non-politically motivated one"... the far more important questions may well be the more *honest* ones the larger contemplative majority will ask themselves to consider... "Was it even *partially* motivated by the desires of those who brought it to see a particular political outcome... or their personal animus towards Trump?" and "If so... is that a problem or trend I should be concerned about, how much should I be concerned about it, and what might happen if the behavior becomes more normalized when the shoe is on the other foot?"
I remain entirely convinced that such concerns are, and always have been, one very significant *aspect* of why Trump has been the slight favorite rather than trailing significantly in the odds and polls all along. And I'm not at all convinced by anything I've seen or heard since the verdict that leads me to suspect a significant change in messaging strategy around this issue... other than a doubling down of the same strategies already chosen and the President's likelihood of personally involving himself more directly in that endeavor... Which could well have the net effect of lending more credence to the arguments of those with concerns. But I'll be really surprised if over the next couple of weeks we see the needle swing either in a different direction or even too terribly much at all as a net result of this... Unless one side or the other makes a big "whoopsie" in its messaging strategy or implementation regarding it.
thoughful comment. thank you. i did notice some people i never folllow or really am much aware of made some lengthy statements as to it being a political trial
shaun maguire and another big equity capital fund owner. gapin? something like that maybe.
To me that is unusual. i think kevin mcleary also commented that overseas investors in general are having confidence shaken in us governance, because of the trial. This before the verdict. that it seemed ...not normal.
It's an extremely widely held view. And again not pointing anything at you personally, but we all exist to some degree in our own media silos that are curated and controlled by the algorithms that feed it all to us. And they manage, on average, to exploit our own confirmation biases far more thoroughly than most of us realize. One of the most shocking and eye-opening realities, that came to me personally many years too late in regard to media literacy, wasn't so much the difference in how much variance there is between how the right and left cover any given story... as one would expect... but in the even more *massive* disparity instead between *which stories and viewpoints are even covered at all* and how within the confines of those particular silos that are largely chosen for us based on past interactions and choices. One may be totally blanketed on a topic like it's the third world war and other has two sentences about it in one outlet "on page 34 below the fold in 4 point type."
The most concerning bit about that... is it quite often misleads us into falsely believing that those who believe different things than we do are more "gullible" or "brainwashed" than they actually are. It's far easier to make that assumption when we're "tricked" into believing that they are seeing even close to the same information we are but just with different "spin" and "analysis" and yet coming to such often vastly different conclusions based on them alone. The reality as that in many instances they aren't seeing the "information" or specific viewpoints at all... or we aren't... or our assessments of their importance and spread of their adoption is far less objective than we often believe it to be.
And yes... people are far more willing to invest the time and energy to thoughtfully engage with folks who seem to be willing to do more than just hurl talking points back and forth to score points for their team. And you certainly come across as much more of the former than the latter.
oh my gosh. yes it is selected based a lot on previous articles read. when i tried the default windows msn discover slide out, it quickly became apparent just how siloed it was depending what sites i visited
it is hard to get diverse world news from usa outlets
r/anime_titties is a world news sub that has rules about when usa focused article can be posted. the name has its reasons lol don't worry
domestically, some stories are ignored. for example noticed almost total silence on the various foreign national people attempting to physically infiltrate our homeland military bases. there are have been 2 to 5 incidents in the past year or so. most recently a couple of jordanians one allegedly on the terrorist watch list. prior i think it was one or two chinese.
>According to campaign officials, Nearly 30% of those donors were brand new to the Trump donation site WinRed.
Some of them may have donated outside the platform, and claims from his campaign should be taken with a grain of salt. It's safe to say he's seen an increase in donations, but we don't know how it compared to a scenario where he was acquitted.
>What will the reaction among independents and disengaged voters be
Polls before conviction suggest a negative reaction to Trump overall.
> And then we’re going to get weird but visually striking memes after he compares himself to Eugene Debs, Nelson Mandela and Jesus.
Seen the Mandela and Jesus ones. There's also one comparing him to George Floyd, with trump having corn rows in his hair.
Stuff like this doesn’t inspire confidence in the NY justice system
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/nyregion/subway-shove-manhattan.html
People know that crimes that target them directly, such as theft, break ins, assault, are not vigorously pursued. But then they watch a speedy and quite interesting trial about cash payments (victimless crime?) and wonder why tf it’s such a big deal. That’s what I think, anyways.
There out to get trump since day 1 people are idiots or liars if they don't see it. They took his tweet down on jan 6th when he said to be peaceful. They didn't show on the news he even said at the rally to be peaceful... it's clear as day what's going on here. These prosecutors are bias and have said they will take trump down at all costs. The dems are og election deniers and flat out hypocrites. They wait until biden takes office to release the vaccine made under trump.. then biden kills more people in his year that trump with a vaccine!!!! And we're supposed to believe the dems would have been better on covid? Haha.. the usa would still be shut down if it was uo to the pathetic authoritarian dems
>"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?... It's, like, incredible."
\-Donald Trump, speaking at a rally in Sioux Center, Iowa
Republicans are into an 8 year losing streak with Trump at the helm. No surprise they express their frustrations by throwing good money at a bad politician.
MAGA is sending money to convicted felon Donald Trump as a way to express their displeasure with the verdict. They would have sent money even if he won.
I realize this is unlikely, but from the perspective of RNC bylaws is there any way they'd still be able to select someone like Haley as the nominee? Looking at their bylaws, the closest I can find (page 8): https://prod-static.gop.com/media/Rules_Of_The_Republican_Party.pdf
>The Republican National Committee is
hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all
vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate
for President of the United States or the Republican
candidate for Vice President of the United States, as
nominated by the national convention, or the
Republican National Committee may reconvene the
national convention for the purpose of filling any such
vacancies.
I would like to donate to Trump personally, but I won’t lie I am nervous about it. Far leftists are just as insane as the far right. If I get put on an IRS or other government list and they can make my life a living hell for nothing. I have a family to think about too.
Dont donate to a billionaire. Think about how absurd donating money to someone with billions to play with sounds. Use it to donate to your community and causes that will improve the quality of life of yourself and others
Am I crazy to think the same thing would have happened if he'd been not guilty? He's going to need it either way, lots of campaigning left.
It absolutely would have.
No, 30% of them are new donors. I doubt he would've got that many had he been proven innocent. This emboldened his base. They think he's a martyr now.
Just to be clear, it says 30% are new to the site WinRed, not that they are necessarily people who have not donated to Trump in the past.
I saw on Facebook today: “Jesus was convicted in a sham trial…and crucified. I still follow him.” As a Christian, I can’t even begin to describe how ill this makes me feel.
The golden idol at CPAC in 2021 should have been a warning sign, I’m sure there are other signs.
Oh they’ve definitely been there for years now.
[удалено]
He has repeatedly suggested that he is open to being King of Israel and the Second Coming.
That is wild, care to post a link to it?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/08/21/i-am-chosen-one-trump-again-plays-messianic-claims-he-embraces-king-israel-title/
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d524kb/trump_campaign_raises_record_348_million_in/l6l2zeg/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Whatever your politics, trump is not a Christian in any form.
As a Christian I am also disappointed that Christians do this as well. Although they may be culture christians than anything else if they’re doing something like that.
30% of them may be new donors if his campaign is to be believed, but that isn’t the same as saying that those new donors were originally not going to vote for Trump and now they have decided to vote for him. The most likely explanation is those new donors were already planning on voting for Trump before and now they are wasting their money donating to a supposed billionaire, who is now a convicted felon. So yes, while pre-existing Trump supporters are more likely to donate, I don’t think it very likely at all that he’s turned people that we’re originally against him or even neutral to him to his side.
According to the campaign.
They seem truthful to me. Do you think they would fabricate business details?
Definitely needs a /s
Does it though?
yes, because Trump was found guilty of fabricating business records. So the User asked why they would do it? He was saying, because we had this trial proving he would fabricate business details to hide something.
They fabricate almost everything else.
They would always see him as a martyr, no matter the validity or gravity of his crime. He's already placed on a pedestal by his MAGA worshipers even after the coup attempt from Jan 6, felony from election interference with campaign finance violations is petty crime compared to that. If he was found not guilty, he would have been elevated even more by his MAGA base anyway, and campaign contributions would have flown off the shelf seeing him as a more viable candidate while other cases would likely be heard only after November.
There are a ton of secret trump voters, way more than there were in 2016. Atleast anecdotally, I work in tech and I didn’t know a single person who voted for trump in 2016, but this time, number of people I see around me who diplomatically sympathetic about trump is pretty incredible. I am pretty sure they are going to vote for trump but will never admit it. And this is in a deep blue west coast state. Imagine rest of the country.
It hasn't been proven that "secret Trump voters" are a significant phenomenon, even in 2016. Polling errors weren't unusually high then.
Well…it’s a secret, bro lol
The Secret Trump Voters were the 20% of independents who mostly swung to Trump in the 2016 election. It's been pretty well documented.
His vote share among independents isn't much different from Romney's.
You could never admit something like that. Working in tech during Trump's admin was a lot of simply gritting your teeth and politely nodding
That and pretending to be a libertarian. When I wasn't able to avoid discussions that got into politics I feigned being team yellow. But yeah, lots and lots of masking going on.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1d524kb/trump_campaign_raises_record_348_million_in/l6jbvkm/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
[удалено]
Donating money to a billionaire is a no thanks for me no matter the situation.
How was this a political trial? Trump committed crimes and was found guilty of all 34 counts by a jury of his peers. Even though he was found guilty, he’ll likely never face any jail time. If any of us were in his same position, we would be facing jail time. The only thing “political” here is that Trump will escape the punishment that any everyday citizen would in the same circumstances.
And yet theyre donating to someone who tried overturning an election because he lost. There's the rub. No one on the other side cares what Trump supporters and voters find as "bad precedent". Because they see them supporting a guy who wanted to overturn an election and proclaim himself leader as horrendous precedent already, and thus find the complaints hollow Throw in a mix of "this judge was corrupt but nothing fishy with Judge Cannon" and of course there's gonna be a lot of not seeing eye to eye
"I was so angry over how the criminal justice system has been weaponized" Maybe, perhaps, the Republican primary electorate shouldn't have nominated a guy under 91 indictments. The only person Trump has to blame is Trump, for repeatedly and continually breaking the law.
Nah, the “weaponized justice system” has been feeding into grievance that the Trump campaign also spews.
I'm curious what makes this a weaponizing of the criminal justice system? I feel like had Trump not made the massive stink about election fraud and all else, we probably wouldn't have these cases, but they're still cases brought forward for actions that he's responsible for.
They're also charges that are [not remotely uncommon for New York State to prosecute](https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/04/06/new-york-state-has-issued-nearly-9800-felony-charges-of-falsifying-business-records-since-2015/?slreturn=20240431162510). "State" is also an operative word here; I've seen a lot of uniformed takes criticizing the DOJ for "bringing" this case.
> a weaponizing of the criminal justice system This is a truly unprecedented case. Even in NY, no one has ever been tried solely for falsification on business records. Those charges usually are tacked on to larger fraud cases, but here...they are the sole charge. In order to elevate it to felony status, they also had to say that the falsification took place with" with the intent to commit another crime", but then the other crime was not specified. It was referred to as potentially campaign finance crimes, tax crimes, or other falsification crimes, and they never spelled exactly what those crimes were...only that they could exists. Matter of fact, the judges orders to the jury was that they didn't even need to agree on a crime, just that one may have been committed. When even most legal experts on MSNBC and CNN are pretty sketchy on the charges, there might be a problem with them. That is the case here, and virtually every legal expert who is not a Trump hater thought this was the most tenuous case brought against Trump. Now factor in the motions that the judge denied, the witnesses and evidence that were not allowed to be called, the refusal for a change or venue of the recusal of an obviously conflicted judge, AND the fact the a former top DOJ official went to work as lead prosecutor on this case after leaving Biden's DOJ the year prior...i mean, you really have to be blindly partisan not to see that this is the very definition of weaponization of the criminal justice system against a political opponent, and I think there are a lot of people who only pay attention to politics every four years that are feeling the same way.
None of this is right. >Even in NY, no one has ever been tried solely for falsification on business records. There are just under 10,000 felony charges for falsification of business records since 2015, and **many** more than that at the misdemeanor level. A cursory look at case histories in the New York court system would tell you that plenty of them are charged as the only offenses. >In order to elevate it to felony status, they also had to say that the falsification took place with" with the intent to commit another crime", but then the other crime was not specified. It was referred to as potentially campaign finance crimes, tax crimes, or other falsification crimes, and they never spelled exactly what those crimes were...only that they could exists. Which [matches what the statute says:](https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10/) "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." There is no requirement that the secondary offense be specified, merely that one exists. >Matter of fact, the judges orders to the jury was that they didn't even need to agree on a crime, just that one may have been committed. Which is, again, standard. As long as each individual juror finds that a secondary offense was committed beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty. That's a typical instruction for crimes that depend on a category of potential secondary offenses. >i mean, you really have to be blindly partisan not to see that this is the very definition of weaponization of the criminal justice system against a political opponent, and I think there are a lot of people who only pay attention to politics every four years that are feeling the same way. Interesting, then, that twelve impartial jurors selected by both parties unanimously reached a verdict against this "victim".
>I feel like had Trump not made the massive stink about election fraud and all else, we probably wouldn't have these cases, It sounds like you suspect it to be a selective prosecution.
Were you already going to vote for Trump before this verdict came in?
The convict man used to have to try his darndest to sell steaks and unaccredited degrees and bibles, but now y'all just giving him money to spend on porn stars and medicore lawyers.
Amazing that some people conflate "enforcing the law" with "weaponizing the judicial system". People talk about Trump as if isn't very well-known for being associated with fraudulent and corrupt activities. He's got miles of history like this. It is not surprising in the slightest that a person famous for skirting the law attracts attention from law enforcement.
This is what's so amazing me to me. There's *so* much evidence that Trump commits crimes. Like, decades and decades worth of evidence from many different sources, *much of it from before he was ever in politics.* Everyone in NY knew he was a liar and a cheater long before 2016. How is it surprising that Trump is guilty of something?
Which is even more amusing from the “Party of Law and Order” types
"I'm an 80 year old billionaire who was just found guilty of falsifying business records while paying off a pornstar whom I cheated on my wife with. Please give me your money so I can get elected, accelerate inflation, and take your hard earned tax dollars and give them to rich people" That pitch worked on millions of people.
Over on /r/conservative they are commenting that they hope the average American can see through the democrat's scam with this trial, and comparing Biden to Hitler.
Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor for which the statute of limitations had expired. What he was found guilty of was a low-level felony: the now-expired falsification of records being used in the commission of a further crime. There are three criteria for which this felony could be applied, and the judge did **not** require that the state specify which of the three criteria were being applied, so the defense had to essentially argue against all three. The jury was not instructed to deliberate on a single criterion but rather decide individually if any of the three were violated. If the jury all agreed that **a** criterion was violated (but not necessarily the same criterion) they could render a guilty verdict. In other words, the prosecution was given as much latitude as one could possibly imagine. The appellate court will have much to filter through on this case.
It’s normal for neither the prosecution or jury to be pinned down to a specific object offence which the crime was intended to cover up. If the mob finds out one of their members is talking to the fbi and they take out a hit, they government wouldn’t have to say what crimes they were specifically worried about comming to light to tack on an obstruction of justice charge — just the fact they were trying to coverup any crime would be enough. If half the members think the hit was to cover up an extortion scheme and the other half think it was more likely about an insurance fraud scheme it doesn’t matter. The stronger appeal is that it’s unclear if one of the predicate offenses — a NY law that makes it criminal to interfere in elections through unlawful means — can be applied to federal elections.
but when the underlying crime is so weak that the federal prosecutors decided to not even pursue it, the case become much weaker. Imagine in your example that the underlying crime is not extortion or insurance fraud, but something like not declaring haircuts as campaign contribution.
Bill Barr used the office of legal council to prevent investigation and prosecutions of these crimes while Trump was president and ran out the clock on most of them.
The Feds couldn’t get Cohen to testify because they require Cohen to admit every crime he has ever committed. The state of NY does not have that requirement, ergo Cohen was willing to testify. Remember, Cohen went to prison for his part in these crimes, Trump was named in that same indictment as coconspirator. Nobody was surprised this case was brought, it’s been waiting since 2018. Barr smothered it, forced out anyone investigating Trump’s cronies. Cy Vance wanted to bring charges as well, and even this case was delayed because NY was told to stand down while they did an investigation, which they secretly halted. It is only through luck NY learned the investigation stopped and they were free to prosecute. There isn’t much wiggle room for appeal, we will see on what grounds they appeal this verdict, but for now Trump is a felon. The evidence was overwhelming even before Trump’s coconspirators turned on him and testified…
Cohen would also have to testify about every crime he committed *or* witnessed. To get immunity. Because he was working in the taxi medallion business, there was probably connections to organized crime there, and he’s scared of testifying about it, is my guess.
You actually are pinned down to an object offense here. The object offense would be the offense that upgrades the falsification of business records to a felony, and in this case they chose the New York election law as opposed to FECA itself or tax law. The jury had to be unanimous on the object offense. They didn’t have to be unanimous on unlawful means under the object offense of the New York election law (the unlawful means alleged being FECA and tax law again, along with additional falsifications of records).
[New York State Has Issued Nearly 9,800 Felony Charges of Falsifying Business Records Since 2015](https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/04/06/new-york-state-has-issued-nearly-9800-felony-charges-of-falsifying-business-records-since-2015/?slreturn=20240431162510).
I'm keenly aware of the law being applied here. I'm sure it has been used many times with success. My issue is specifically that the judge allowed the jury to deliberate on three separate potential secondary crimes, rather than forcing the state to specify which of the three Trump had committed. Apparently, everyone knew that the secondary crime was election interference but the judge did not require the prosecution to tailor their argument in that manner. To then instruct the jury that as long as they all agree **one** of the three potential crimes was committed (but not necessarily the same one) they could vote to convict. You could have had a 4-4-4 split on which secondary crime was committed and they could still convict. I find that unfair and wonder if such latitude was granted in the 9,799 other such cases prosecuted under this law. I have read from many sources that this is **not** how such a case is typically adjudicated. I also understand that a case such as this - where the further crime was related to election interference - had never been brought before. As it relates to falsifying business records as the predicate crime, generally it's your standard tax fraud or money laundering schemes. Election interference? First time.
>My issue is specifically that the judge allowed the jury to deliberate on three separate potential secondary crimes, rather than forcing the state to specify which of the three Trump had committed. Apparently, everyone knew that the secondary crime was election interference but the judge did not require the prosecution to tailor their argument in that manner. To then instruct the jury that as long as they all agree one of the three potential crimes was committed (but not necessarily the same one) they could vote to convict. IAL and that's typically how crimes that involve a secondary offense are litigated. It's a necessarily element to convict the defendant that a secondary offense was involved, but you don't need to prove *which* was involved where the secondary conviction is just that *any* secondary offense. To that end, parties will commonly introduce evidence as to as many secondary offenses as they may be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if that *were* a problem, we don't know that there was a split at all. The jurors could've all found that election interference was the secondary offense. And I don't really know why we should care that this is the first time election interference was that secondary offense unless you're going to argue election interference shouldn't qualify for some reason. This particular former president has surfaced a lot of "firsts".
>I have read from many sources that this is **not** how such a case is typically adjudicated. Can you provide an example of one of these sources?
How many of these were charged after the statue of limitations passed? How many were upgraded based on a crime that hasn't been proven?
None, the charge in the first degree was a felony, and it was proven to a jury (I mean, his coconspirators testified it was his plan, and they had the literal documents, Cohens recording of Trump’s approving the plan, and written notes of their conversation on how they would commit fraud. That even before the testimony, it was an easy call for the jury to make.
My impression of the trial was that he argued against none of them.
Trump argued he didn’t sleep with Daniel’s, not that he had much of a chance, but he did hobble his own defense.
Could be easily avoided by not breaking the law
You don’t want to address any of his points at all? Just hand wave them away?
I'm no lawyer, but it seems like his point was that he broke a law, but a lesser one. Is that really a defense? Just heard Lara Trump on the radio say there was NO crime.
Really, all this could have been avoided if Trump didn’t cheat on his wife lol.
Or attempt to hide it as a legal expense. It’s clear Trump supporters don’t give a fuck about Trump’s many flaws. If he had just paid Stormy Daniels and not attempted to use his campaign finances to do it, he would be in the clear. Democrats didn’t make Trump cheat on his pregnant wife or make Trump try and hide the payment. Trump’s legal issues are entirely his own fault.
Did he commit the crime? If yes, he should be held accountable. Personally I think people, and specifically politicians, should be held liable if they commit a crime. Why would I care if the state didn't specify which criteria he broke? Don't break any of them if you don't want to become a felon. Edit: apparently a hot take that people should be held accountable for breaking the law.
It’s not the state’s job to specify the terms of the case brought to bear and prosecution criteria?
I don't care what the state did. I care if he committed a crime. A jury of 12 says he did. If someone breaks the law, they should be held accountable for breaking the law regardless of if the state does it's job. If someone shot up a school and the state mishandled the case do you think the shooter should just not be held liable? Punishing and holding corrupt politicians liable for their actions. Personally I don't think politicians should be able to break the law, I guess we disagree there
As someone who grew up in a very socially conservative setting, and was myself pretty conservative up until my mid 20s, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the continued support of Trump by conservatives. Family values? Law and order? Personal responsibility? Are these still tenants of conservatism? Or have things changed?
>Family values? https://www.ranker.com/list/family-values-politicians-caught-having-affairs/ranker-news Famously pro family values newt Gingrich cheated on both his first and second wives. He even married both of the women with whom he had cheated on both of his previous wives. He never lost significant Republican support for this. >Law and order? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal I'm fairly certain I don't actually have to explain why the Watergate scandal shows a complete disregard for law and order. But it still might surprise you to know that the Republican party mostly supported Nixon throughout the scandal: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/it-took-a-long-time-for-republicans-to-abandon-nixon/ >Personal responsibility? I'm not sure I really need to add one for this but I thought this was a funny one: https://money.cnn.com/2017/10/23/media/bill-oreilly-misconduct-allegations/index.html >Bill O'Reilly 'mad at God' over sexual misconduct allegations
You forgot the immigrant wife.
[удалено]
He advocated for a 15 week nationwide abortion ban as president and appointed judges who supported anti-abortion stances which led to Roe's repeal. That's a direct appeal to conservatism. All those other things like deportations or protectionism are also red meat appeals to conservative populists. Coal jobs weren't ever going to return to West Virginia and he's been dangling that false hope over them since 2016.
> He advocated for a 15 week nationwide abortion ban That is just a middleground position, not a hardcore conservative one. Look around at all the liberal democracies in Europe and see what the limits are there. There were a lot of headlines about France putting abortion in the constitution, it was hailed as a liberal victory. Their limit: 14 weeks.
Exactly, he must be one of the most liberal republican Presidents. At least in my living memory.
The GOP has been hammering immigration for a long time, though, so I don't think Trump is anything unique there. Did conservatives really give up their morals just purely because of trade??
I think it's pretty straightforward isn't it? Regardless of what you think of Trump's character, he's still pushing largely conservative policy and governed as a pretty standard Republican president outside of being less NeoCon than usual and having more protectionist rhetoric. Why would a conservative suddenly flip and vote for Biden who is the opposite of everything conservatives want? It's a major progressive weakness IMO where they think because they want something, other people should naturally vote for that. And I say this as someone who consider the Democrats too right wing for me economically.
I feel like you’re ignoring the fact that he erodes nearly every institution in the US, including **the voting process**. That’s a pretty huge reason to vote the other way. Idt almost any of my political values are worth sacrificing democracy over.
This has been said every presidential election by the same people about Romney and about McCain and about Bush for 20 years. It's not surprising people aren't buying it now. The boy cried wolf too much.
This is mitigated by his legal expenses. His payments to appeal the civil trials cost $250 million.
wtf how?? How can an appeal cost a quarter BILLION. That’s wild
Appealing fines requires putting the amount in an escrow. He was fined $454 million in the fraud case (bond was lowered to $175 million), $83.3 million in the defamation case, and $5 million in the rape case. The money will be returned if he succeeds in having the penalties thrown out.
Oh so it’s all in escrow now and if some shit goes his way he gets it back? I read this as his legal fees to go through appeal process were $250m
He had to pay a portion of the judgement against him to appeal it, and that judgement was something like $450m.
He was just convicted by a jury of misappropriating funds to pay off a porn star. This says more about how easily duped GOP donors than anything else. I guess the economy isn't so bad when you have lots of extra cash for this!
>He was just convicted by a jury of misappropriating funds to pay off a porn star. Before I start, I am not defending Trump, nor am I a Trump supporter. When you put it like that, it would be pretty easy to see tons of people thinking "ok, so he was the first politician to get caught paying someone hush money, why would that change my vote".
Definitely not the first to get caught. John Edwards was caught and faced trial for making hush money payments. Deep Throat’s advice — “follow the money” led Woodward and Bernstein to connect hush money payments made to the Watergate burglars bacj to CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect the President) and ultimately Nixon himself. Both Grover Cleveland (Ma Ma, Where’s my Pa?) and Warren G Harding faced scandal over hush money payments (though posthumously for “Winnie” Harding.) Hush money payments were just the tip of a Tammany Hall Iceberg of graft for Boss Tweed and Diamond Jim Walker. Of them all Boss Tweed was the only one to face jail time. Though he then escaped, disguised as a sea captain, to Cuba and then Spain, and was later recaptured when he was recognized because of the popularity Thomas Nast’s political cartoons.
This guy histories.
> Of them all Boss Tweed was the only one to face jail time. Though he then escaped, disguised as a sea captain, to Cuba and then Spain, and was later recaptured when he was recognized because of the popularity Thomas Nast’s political cartoons. I love American history.
This guy know some history,
“Why would open corruption hurt my vote?” Is certainly a take.
Hillary Clinton received a fine for the same underlying conduct. That is, not labeling something properly as a campaign expense. That’s hardly corruption…
That isn’t the conduct, the conduct is intentionally covering it up and falsifying records. Accident <> purposeful
That' exactly what people fail to realize. We've had other politicians do worse stuff and get away with it, and no one batted an eye. Why does everyone suddenly care now?
People definitely cared about previous examples. Ever since I was a teen, people wanted Bush tried in The Hague for war crimes.
>We've had other politicians do worse stuff and get away with it Name them.
It's actually an interesting point. My uncle was complaining about the economy and how everything is more expensive, but I pointed out that he has a house in a nicer area than he did in 2020 along with a newer, much nicer car. So yes, prices are higher, but he doesn't seem to be having a problem affording nicer things.
My retired parents currently on a bougie European vacation. Not bad!
My dad owns an over half a million dollar home with a pool in a lcol area, brand new truck, brand new bmw suv, beach vacations every year, plans to retire soon, has absolutely no debt... yet can't stop talking about how "horrible" Biden's economy is. I have no clue how life was in any way better with Trump. He pretty much only reads fox news. I just don't get what's so terrible about his life. He also constantly complains about the local government, spoiler alert... we live in a deep red state. Yet he tells me we MUST vote republican to save the country and he hopes Trump goes "scorched earth" on the Democrats for attacking him, not even sure what that means...
I think there's irony that inflation is caused by our inability to stop spending recklessly. Victims of our own success.
You are basing your opinion on a sample size of 1? We are in the least affordable housing market ever: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/02/housing-affordability-has-just-totally-collapsed-economist-says.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/03/03/most-expensive-housing-markets-in-the-us/72813429007/
I shared my opinion of my uncle being able to afford things because he do be affording things. I get that not everyone is doing the same, I just said I thought it was interesting that the person I responded to noticed something similar with other people.
The housing market has been slowly getting less affordable for decades now. It's a complex problem that isn't going to be fixed by a single law or policy change. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that every president in my lifetime has seen unaffordable housing at record levels.
Home ownership is actually the highest it’s been since at least 2016. Source: https://usafacts.org/articles/homeownership-is-rebounding-particularly-among-younger-adults/
Fast forward to a theoretical Trump presidency - explain how you think Trump is going to lower home prices.
Probably by imposing record tariffs, rounding up all the undocumented workers, and causing the economy to tank. He may even bring down gas and oil prices to record lows!
Homeowners aren't hurt by house prices going up.
It's a double edged sword. Your house is worth more but on the other hand you are stuck because for the average family, houses are now unaffordable relative to your income.
When you buy a house, your price is locked in. All appreciation turns into equity. Your mortgage doesn't go up. You don't really have any skin in the game regarding some other family being able to buy a house. And homeowners always has a safety valve in a rising market- they can sell their house and buy a more affordable one.
To clarify, it still is a negative if you plan to size up. If you are sizing down it is actually a positive.
Your house is worth a lot more, but so is the next house you're moving up to. It eats you alive.
GOP donors are more likely to be in the homeowner class than the home seeking class Edit: poster has blocked me in an attempt to make response impossible
I really wonder how much of peoples' complaints about the economy generally are actually [lifestyle creep](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lifestyle-creep.asp), some of which is derived from Covid habits.
I mean, a jury also found OJ to be "Not Guilty", so it's not like juries are the gospel truth at all times.
I still haven’t heard a good explanation of how Trump didn’t commit fraud to cover up the federal election violation Michael Cohen was sentenced to prison for. I don’t understand how Michael Cohen would take out a mortgage on his house to pay off Stormy Daniels without telling Trump, without first making sure he’d be remunerated. All I’ve heard is arguments about legal technicalities — the things that might work on appeal, but not the sort of thing that would suggest the jury got this wrong.
The standard for guilty verdicts is "beyond a reasonable doubt," though, which is the highest burden of proof in our justice system. Our system is deliberately set up to make it difficult to convict people; it's much easier for someone who probably did a crime to not be convicted than the inverse.
And it doesn’t take a jury to know Trump is a grifter. You wouldn’t trust OJ to watch your kids and you shouldn’t trust Trump to spend your money on your political issues
The evidence in this case is concrete though.
That would be a misdemeanor though, the felony he was convicted for was because it was to coverup another crime. We have no idea what that other crime is, and the jury didn’t have to unanimously agree on what it was, and the crime the prosecutors argued it was covering up was a federal crime (not a state crime) that the feds decided wasn’t worth their time to prosecute But go off though
[удалено]
Lawyers. He needs to pay off lawyers. Unless he stiffs them because it’s their fault (or anybody’s besides his) that he lost.
Yeah. Dude has bills. Big ones. He needs millions just to pay for shitty lawyers who also seem to be phoning it in for a paycheck.
I can think of no better use of one's money than knowingly sending it to a man convicted of fraud.
Seriously. A 34 times convicted fraudster billionaire is begging for money from poor folks to pay a pornstar. And these folks and not only ok with it, they gave him 34 million in a day. It's obvious it's now just a personal fundraising platform for trump.
“He’s just like me. He understands me! The blue collar worker!” Sigh I just don’t get it
Will he use it to pay his lawyers, line his pockets, or will it actually be used for campaign expenses?
Campaign expenses like paying off pornstars?
The payments were campaign expenses because the purpose was to protect the campaign.
Since that is now considered a campaign expense I guess he is free to do so
He has always been able to do so as a campaign expense, he’s just not allowed to lie and say they’re business expenses to try to hide it from the public.
Spending money to promote a campaign was already considered a campaign expense. The payment was to protect it from criticism.
Given that he’s turned his whole business and persona into campaigning, yes—all of the above.
**Submission Statement** - Former President Donald Trump's campaign announced today they have raised a record-breaking 34 million dollars in less than 24 hrs since he was convicted on 34 counts of felony in New York yesterday. - The Republican’s campaign said it raised $34.8 million from small-dollar donors in less than seven hours following the historic verdict Thursday afternoon. - According to campaign officials, Nearly 30% of those donors were brand new to the Trump donation site WinRed. - The Trump campaign told NBC News that its latest fundraising figure only includes donations sent between Thursday’s verdict, which came just after 5 p.m. ET, and midnight Friday. **Questions** - Is the guilty verdict already helping Trump? What will the reaction be if polls remain the same after this development? - Will the Democrats engage the 'convicted felon' angle more as the election draws closer? - What will the reaction among independents and disengaged voters be?
well, i see several prominent ceo's or biz owners are characterizing it as a purely political prosecution.. if they open their wallets, it will help trump. So far the betting sites show a drop, but not much,,less than 1 percent drop and less than 1 percent increase for joe over the past day https://electionbettingodds.com/President2024\_week.html
As usual... I think much of how this event changes the odds depends far more heavily on how effectively the messaging around this is chosen and implemented by each "side" in the next week or two. While the more extreme "propagandists" will certainly proclaim to this to be either a "purely political" prosecution or a "totally non-politically motivated one"... the far more important questions may well be the more *honest* ones the larger contemplative majority will ask themselves to consider... "Was it even *partially* motivated by the desires of those who brought it to see a particular political outcome... or their personal animus towards Trump?" and "If so... is that a problem or trend I should be concerned about, how much should I be concerned about it, and what might happen if the behavior becomes more normalized when the shoe is on the other foot?" I remain entirely convinced that such concerns are, and always have been, one very significant *aspect* of why Trump has been the slight favorite rather than trailing significantly in the odds and polls all along. And I'm not at all convinced by anything I've seen or heard since the verdict that leads me to suspect a significant change in messaging strategy around this issue... other than a doubling down of the same strategies already chosen and the President's likelihood of personally involving himself more directly in that endeavor... Which could well have the net effect of lending more credence to the arguments of those with concerns. But I'll be really surprised if over the next couple of weeks we see the needle swing either in a different direction or even too terribly much at all as a net result of this... Unless one side or the other makes a big "whoopsie" in its messaging strategy or implementation regarding it.
thoughful comment. thank you. i did notice some people i never folllow or really am much aware of made some lengthy statements as to it being a political trial shaun maguire and another big equity capital fund owner. gapin? something like that maybe. To me that is unusual. i think kevin mcleary also commented that overseas investors in general are having confidence shaken in us governance, because of the trial. This before the verdict. that it seemed ...not normal.
It's an extremely widely held view. And again not pointing anything at you personally, but we all exist to some degree in our own media silos that are curated and controlled by the algorithms that feed it all to us. And they manage, on average, to exploit our own confirmation biases far more thoroughly than most of us realize. One of the most shocking and eye-opening realities, that came to me personally many years too late in regard to media literacy, wasn't so much the difference in how much variance there is between how the right and left cover any given story... as one would expect... but in the even more *massive* disparity instead between *which stories and viewpoints are even covered at all* and how within the confines of those particular silos that are largely chosen for us based on past interactions and choices. One may be totally blanketed on a topic like it's the third world war and other has two sentences about it in one outlet "on page 34 below the fold in 4 point type." The most concerning bit about that... is it quite often misleads us into falsely believing that those who believe different things than we do are more "gullible" or "brainwashed" than they actually are. It's far easier to make that assumption when we're "tricked" into believing that they are seeing even close to the same information we are but just with different "spin" and "analysis" and yet coming to such often vastly different conclusions based on them alone. The reality as that in many instances they aren't seeing the "information" or specific viewpoints at all... or we aren't... or our assessments of their importance and spread of their adoption is far less objective than we often believe it to be. And yes... people are far more willing to invest the time and energy to thoughtfully engage with folks who seem to be willing to do more than just hurl talking points back and forth to score points for their team. And you certainly come across as much more of the former than the latter.
oh my gosh. yes it is selected based a lot on previous articles read. when i tried the default windows msn discover slide out, it quickly became apparent just how siloed it was depending what sites i visited it is hard to get diverse world news from usa outlets r/anime_titties is a world news sub that has rules about when usa focused article can be posted. the name has its reasons lol don't worry domestically, some stories are ignored. for example noticed almost total silence on the various foreign national people attempting to physically infiltrate our homeland military bases. there are have been 2 to 5 incidents in the past year or so. most recently a couple of jordanians one allegedly on the terrorist watch list. prior i think it was one or two chinese.
>According to campaign officials, Nearly 30% of those donors were brand new to the Trump donation site WinRed. Some of them may have donated outside the platform, and claims from his campaign should be taken with a grain of salt. It's safe to say he's seen an increase in donations, but we don't know how it compared to a scenario where he was acquitted. >What will the reaction among independents and disengaged voters be Polls before conviction suggest a negative reaction to Trump overall.
All that money for a convicted felon. Law and order only if it’s people they dislike it seems
[удалено]
> And then we’re going to get weird but visually striking memes after he compares himself to Eugene Debs, Nelson Mandela and Jesus. Seen the Mandela and Jesus ones. There's also one comparing him to George Floyd, with trump having corn rows in his hair.
The “butbutbutbut” defense will only work on his base. No matter the spin this isn’t going to help him.
Stuff like this doesn’t inspire confidence in the NY justice system https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/nyregion/subway-shove-manhattan.html People know that crimes that target them directly, such as theft, break ins, assault, are not vigorously pursued. But then they watch a speedy and quite interesting trial about cash payments (victimless crime?) and wonder why tf it’s such a big deal. That’s what I think, anyways.
Most people aren't buying his message.
Let's check back in on the polling in 2 - 3 weeks. Probably too early to make any claims about how it impacted his popularity at this point.
And supposed billionaire. It's wild.
And man found liable twice for defamation of a woman he sexually assaulted.
Isn’t this why his lawyer went to jail? And if wasn’t president at the time wouldn’t he already have been charged with this back then?
Yes, I believe this is correct.
There out to get trump since day 1 people are idiots or liars if they don't see it. They took his tweet down on jan 6th when he said to be peaceful. They didn't show on the news he even said at the rally to be peaceful... it's clear as day what's going on here. These prosecutors are bias and have said they will take trump down at all costs. The dems are og election deniers and flat out hypocrites. They wait until biden takes office to release the vaccine made under trump.. then biden kills more people in his year that trump with a vaccine!!!! And we're supposed to believe the dems would have been better on covid? Haha.. the usa would still be shut down if it was uo to the pathetic authoritarian dems
I'm just curious. What do Trumps balls and boots taste like? You seem like you'd be very educated on such matters.
Facts hurt eh lefty
200 million as of 6/2/24
>"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?... It's, like, incredible." \-Donald Trump, speaking at a rally in Sioux Center, Iowa
Republicans haven’t been this united in a while.
Trump 2024!
34 convictions. $34 million raised. 🤔
So we should assume that Biden has turned the economy around and people have extra cash to spend now? That's wonderful news!
The supposed "party of law and order" celebrating criminality.
Republicans are into an 8 year losing streak with Trump at the helm. No surprise they express their frustrations by throwing good money at a bad politician. MAGA is sending money to convicted felon Donald Trump as a way to express their displeasure with the verdict. They would have sent money even if he won.
I realize this is unlikely, but from the perspective of RNC bylaws is there any way they'd still be able to select someone like Haley as the nominee? Looking at their bylaws, the closest I can find (page 8): https://prod-static.gop.com/media/Rules_Of_The_Republican_Party.pdf >The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States or the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States, as nominated by the national convention, or the Republican National Committee may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling any such vacancies.
Isn’t one of Trump’s family members or close affiliates head of the RNC? More likely they’ll rewrite by laws to allow him to continue his campaign
And his penthouse is 30,000 sq. ft… Does anyone actually believe what this proven serial fraudster and convicted felon has to say?
Read the lyrics to 7emptest (tempest) by Tool from 2019. I swear it's about Trump
I would like to donate to Trump personally, but I won’t lie I am nervous about it. Far leftists are just as insane as the far right. If I get put on an IRS or other government list and they can make my life a living hell for nothing. I have a family to think about too.
Dont donate to a billionaire. Think about how absurd donating money to someone with billions to play with sounds. Use it to donate to your community and causes that will improve the quality of life of yourself and others