Trump's legal woes

[Janus58]

Bad side to this is that it could elevate his martyr status and help win him the election.
Does that sound too far fetched?

Doubtful. The people that think that way already plan on voting for him, and would consider him a martyr just by virtue of his being prosecuted. The latest polls indicate that among the yet undecided voters, a conviction hurts him. So while it will invigorate his base, that is not likely to make up for the damage it would do with other voters.

 

[C C]

Bad side to this is that it could elevate his martyr status and help win him the election.
Does that sound too far fetched?

Apart from any 100% loam topsoil dirt-stupid followers who actually believed Trump could make it through this trial and all the oncoming ones without a conviction, this was indeed an expectation that the campaign intended to exploit both financially and numbers-wise. So nothing actually new thrown into the process, though for some overly sheltered Democrats it might be a surprise interpretation of events...

Robert F. Kennedy Jr: I think that this conviction is going to backfire for the Democrats, I think every time that President Trump has been indicted, that his approval ratings actually increase, his popularity increases.​

​

[...] I think the Democrats feel like they have a candidate that cannot win fair and square in the polls. And so they have to win in the courts. They have to win by clearing the deck and getting their other opponents out of the race.​

​

I'm not a fan of President Trump's. But I want to win, I want to beat him in a campaign on a level playing field. I want to talk about his issues...​

​

[...] I don't want to beat him in a courtroom. I think it's not good for our country and I think it's really going to backfire on the Democrats.​

​

My father was the attorney general. His first week in office, he called out all the division heads of the bureau chiefs and the chief department of justice, and he said Rule Number One: we never prosecute based on politics. Politics is out the window. No matter whether someone is Democrat or Republican.​

​

The reason he did that is because he understood how important it is for our country and the American people to have faith that the judicial system is neutral and all of us need to respected. If we start believing that it's politicized, it's terrible for our country.​

​

Trump tries to spin guilty into gold: Former President Donald Trump and his aides are touting lucrative fundraising as proof his criminal court conviction will trigger a backlash and bolster his support among voters.​

​

The Trump campaign announced late Friday it raised nearly $53 million in online donations in the 24 hours after a New York jury convicted him of falsifying business records in order to improperly influence the 2016 presidential election.​

They're also exaggerating how Trump's official "criminal status" resonates with independent Black and Hispanic voters who may similarly have family members who deem themselves victims of law-enforcement oppression.

Granted, there are "covert" independents who are actually registered as Democrat, not just in places like the South Bronx, but also Red States where the momentum of family tradition still maintains the Democrat registration of the old days, while contrarily voting Republican for POTUS. But the former are just a small, disaffected segment of Deep Blue pockets in Democrat cities and states.

video link --> MSNBC supposedly being shocked by the black & Hispanic supporters of Donald Trump

video link --> Supposed Black and Latinx support at Bronx rally several days ago

 

[LaurieAG]

Doubtful. The people that think that way already plan on voting for him, and would consider him a martyr just by virtue of his being prosecuted. The latest polls indicate that among the yet undecided voters, a conviction hurts him. So while it will invigorate his base, that is not likely to make up for the damage it would do with other voters.

That was one of the trends prior to the previous election, polls being biased against Trump by much larger than the margins of error and not reflecting the actual end results.

 

[Seattle]

The sentencing will be interesting. It is possible that he could get a little prison time. That's not the most likely outcome but it is possible since he shows no remorse, a fine isn't going to do anything and since he was convicted on all charges.

The judge could give him 2 years with 1 year off for good behavior and a bunch of other BS and get it to where he has to spend a couple of months in prison. That would still be a big deal.

None of that would happen until the appeals are over so a couple of years could pass. He could pass by then. The "corrupt" Supreme Court could somehow get involved. Just having prison time hanging over his head for 2 years would be something.

If he loses the Presidential election he has other trials that could go on. When it time for sentencing for those he would be a multiple charges convicted felon and he could get real prison time for those (potentially).

It gets much more interesting if he doesn't win the upcoming election.

It's also much more interesting (to me) and helpful if Biden doesn't control the houses of Congress. Eventually everyone will die, some moderates will be elected (I hope) and change will be more gradual (as it should be where finances and taxation are concerned). No more MAGA and "progressives" I hope.

 

[Seattle]

Doubtful. The people that think that way already plan on voting for him, and would consider him a martyr just by virtue of his being prosecuted. The latest polls indicate that among the yet undecided voters, a conviction hurts him. So while it will invigorate his base, that is not likely to make up for the damage it would do with other voters.

I don't think it's going to change anything on either side, regardless of what polls may say.

The MAGA voters are going to support him in any case. Those who strongly support Biden are going to vote for Biden of course. People who don't like either and just haven't decided how they are going to vote or if they are going to vote aren't likely to be affected by the verdict either since most everyone already knows what he did.

If there had been a hung jury, no one's opinions would change and I don't think anyone's opinion changed with the guilty verdicts.

I think a lot of people (including me) feel "good" that the system worked and that he was found guilty but it was a close race before the verdict and I think it's still a close race.

 

[Janus58]

I don't think it's going to change anything on either side, regardless of what polls may say.

The MAGA voters are going to support him in any case. Those who strongly support Biden are going to vote for Biden of course. People who don't like either and just haven't decided how they are going to vote or if they are going to vote aren't likely to be affected by the verdict either since most everyone already knows what he did.

If there had been a hung jury, no one's opinions would change and I don't think anyone's opinion changed with the guilty verdicts.

I think a lot of people (including me) feel "good" that the system worked and that he was found guilty but it was a close race before the verdict and I think it's still a close race.

There is a whole segment of the voting public that don't identify as either "Democrat" or "Republican". Thus the two "sides" alone aren't going to decide this. So while there are many for which this conviction will make no difference, there are those where it will, and in a close race, this can be the deciding factor,

 

[Seattle]

There is a whole segment of the voting public that don't identify as either "Democrat" or "Republican". Thus the two "sides" alone aren't going to decide this. So while there are many for which this conviction will make no difference, there are those where it will, and in a close race, this can be the deciding factor,

The group that didn't know what he did until the jury told them? That's a small group and they probably can't find their way into a voting booth.

 

[billvon]

The group that didn't know what he did until the jury told them? That's a small group and they probably can't find their way into a voting booth.

I think you may be overestimating the level of interest Americans place in politics, and the attention they afford the topic. A great many simply don't care. At all. They number at least in the millions. And all they may hear is that Trump is mean and Biden is a pedophile (to take two examples of memes promulgated hard by the media) so they are going to vote for Trump. But this trial was big enough news that it's likely to reach their awareness, and now they know he's a felon. That may affect even those who don't follow any politics.

 

[James R]

the judge explicitly told the jurors that they didn't need to be unanimous on what that other crime was, only that there was one.

The judge, in his directions to the jury, suggested three specific "other crimes" they could consider, which had been put forward by the prosecutors.

If 8 jurors out of 12 thought that Trump was guilty of trying to cover up Crime A, while another 2 thought he was guilty of trying to cover up crime B, and the last two thought he was guilty of trying to cover up both, it seems to me that it doesn't match matter that the jurors didn't all agree on whether the cover-up attempt related to crime A or B. In either case, the requirements for the felony would seem to be made out.

Trump could, on appeal, try running the argument that the law actually requires that all 12 jurors agree about which crime or crimes were being covered up by the falsification of the business records. I don't know how that would go for him.

 

[James R]

The following is based on this article:

https://www.axios.com/2024/05/31/trump-guilty-verdict-president-election-polls

A YouGov poll conducted in the wake of the verdict found:
* 27% of voters said the conviction made them less likely to vote for Trump
* 26% said they were more likely to vote for him
* 39% said the verdict "makes no difference" in how they'll vote.

Broken down by party:
* 50% of Republicans saying they're more likely to vote for Trump following this verdict.
* 44% of Democrats said they're now even less likely to vote for him.

Also, an ABC News/Ipsos poll released earlier this month found that 80% of Trump supporters said they would continue to support him even if he was convicted. Another 16% said they'd reconsider their support, but only 4% said they'd no longer support him.

This all looks very much like the guilty verdict in this trial won't impact Trump's chances in the upcoming election. However, that might be an unsafe conclusion to draw here.
---

Mostly, the rusted-on Republican and Democrat voters won't matter much in the upcoming election, because they won't decide the result. What will matter is who the undecided likely voters in the crucial swing states ultimately decide to vote for (if they decide to vote at all).

A New York Times/Siena College poll of six battleground states in October 2023 found that about 7% of Trump's supporters said they'd vote for Biden if Trump were found guilty. The same poll found that 21% of young Trump supporters said they'd back Biden in the case of a guilty verdict. Only 2% of Trump's 65-and-older supporter said the same. Among Black voters who support Trump, 27% said they'd flip to Biden in the event of a conviction, while only 5% of Trump's white supporters said the same.

Bearing in mind that Presidential elections in the past have been decided by relatively tiny numbers of votes, a swing of even a few percent of Trump's potential supporters away from him could make the different between him winning the election and losing it.

 

[Sarkus]

The judge, in his directions to the jury, suggested three specific "other crimes" they could consider, which had been put forward by the prosecutors.

If 8 jurors out of 12 thought that Trump was guilty of trying to cover up Crime A, while another 2 thought he was guilty of trying to cover up crime B, and the last two thought he was guilty of trying to cover up both, it seems to me that it doesn't match matter that the jurors didn't all agree on whether the cover-up attempt related to crime A or B. In either case, the requirements for the felony would seem to be made out.

Trump could, on appeal, try running the argument that the law actually requires that all 12 jurors agree about which crime or crimes were being covered up by the falsification of the business records. I don't know how that would go for him.

New York law doesn't require the "second crime" to be specified, or the defendant even to be indicted, let alone convicted of it. There just needs to be unanimous agreement that there was intent to commit a second crime. This is, I believe, settled law, so there's not much scope for a successful appeal on that matter, given that the appeal would be to the state appeals court - and the importance of this decision should not be grounds to change the law.

However, there is a question of whether the second crime can be a federal crime (e.g. federal election campaign act violation), or whether it has to be a New York state crime. There are possible constitutional grounds for requiring it to be a state crime (or if not then another crime that has been adjudicated upon and guilt affirmed). Otherwise, the argument goes, the scope of the New York statute 175.10 is too broad. So there may be grounds for appeal in the judge's instructions giving incorrect guidance by not specifying at least the appropriate scope that the second crime must comply with. E.g. if he said that the second crime could be a federal crime rather than needed to be a state one then possibly it might fall foul. It's not a matter that has ever been adjudicated on, so who knows what the state appeals court will decide. I'm surprised that the DA didn't suggest the instruction limit that second crime to being a violation of state law (there is similar state election law, for example) just to avoid this potential pitfall.
So we'll see what the Appeals court says, whenever it gets round to it.

 

[James R]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr: I think that this conviction is going to backfire for the Democrats, I think every time that President Trump has been indicted, that his approval ratings actually increase, his popularity increases.[...] I think the Democrats feel like they have a candidate that cannot win fair and square in the polls. And so they have to win in the courts.

The case relating to Trump's business records was a state prosecution, not a federal one. The Biden administration was in no way involved in it, so it's drawing a long bow to suggest that it was a political prosecution instigated by the Democratic Party.

 

[Sarkus]

Two things, though:
1. the MAGA supporters, as well as anyone looking for a reason to bash the Democrats / Biden, simply don't care too much about the reality of it. Trump and his cult following push untruth after untruth and the base lap it up with gusto.
2. the optics don't look clean on the matter. You have to actually dig deeper to see that New York have charged (and won) many cases on the same basis, and for a lot less than the USD130k in Trump's case. But the optics, the surface detail, is that New York have spent a signficant amount of money and time to charge someone for what many see as a rather petty matter. Why? Well, the obvious reason for most to grasp would be politics. Rightly or wrongly doesn't matter. It's the optics.

 

[C C]

The case relating to Trump's business records was a state prosecution, not a federal one. The Biden administration was in no way involved in it, so it's drawing a long bow to suggest that it was a political prosecution instigated by the Democratic Party.

It can seem initially bizarre that RFK Jr. would be parroting the Trump campaign about banana republics and weaponization of the judicial system. But this particular "plot propaganda" long predates Trump's conviction, and has probably become part of generic conspiracy theory lore by now. Thus, no surprise that RFK Jr. picked it up independently on his own.

The above possibility, of course, is setting aside the "hurtful" opinions of those who consider RFK Jr. to just be insane to begin with (i.e., "So why bother to wonder if he's directly imitating or not?").

 

[billvon]

The case relating to Trump's business records was a state prosecution, not a federal one. The Biden administration was in no way involved in it, so it's drawing a long bow to suggest that it was a political prosecution instigated by the Democratic Party.

?? Why would any of that matter? These are people who thought Trump really won in 2020, that the COVID vaccine causes COVID and genetic mutations, that masks don't work and that global warming is a Chinese plot to weaken America. Facts simply don't matter.

 

[DaveC426913]

Facts simply don't matter.

They don't matter to his cult followers, true. But I suspect a lot more level heads (particularly those with money) are taking this conviction as a significant milestone.

 

[billvon]

They don't matter to his cult followers, true. But I suspect a lot more level heads (particularly those with money) are taking this conviction as a significant milestone.

Yep, hopefully that's true.

 

[C C]

In the interview a couple of days ago, Trump apparently said he's OK with house arrest or jail time.

Although Norm Eisen supposedly assessed that one in ten people convicted of falsifying business records like Trump get imprisoned, Judge Merchan will probably at minimum have to place him under home detention with electronic bracelet. Due to insults and extended misbehavior.

Ron Kuby: “Judge Merchan is known for being a harsh sentencer when it comes to white-collar crimes committed by people who have wealth and privilege and power ... It is substantially likely Judge Merchan will sentence Trump to jail or prison time."
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Trump combines small donors and billionaires for a record fundraising haul in May

Trump combines small donors and billionaires for a record fundraising haul in May

Donald Trump's campaign announced a crush of new money in May, combining a new surge of support from small-dollar donors with continuing strength among billionaires.

finance.yahoo.com

EXCERPTS: Donald Trump's campaign said it raised nearly $300 million in May as it benefited from a new surge of support among small-dollar donors on top of an existing strength with billionaires.

[...] The surge in small-dollar contributions may level off in June, but Trump is set to continue raising large amounts of billionaire cash. The former president is set to travel to California on Thursday for a fundraiser with tech billionaires.

One of the co-hosts of this week's event is investor David O. Sacks, who has been an outspoken Trump evangelist in Silicon Valley. He said on a recent episode of his podcast that he hopes this week's event will "break the ice" and allow more business leaders to openly donate. It "could really cascade on itself," he added.

[...] The surge in small donors was clearly driven by the outcome of Trump's hush money trial, with the campaign saying it raised $53 million online in the 24 hours after Trump's conviction on May 30.

The surge in donations was so intense that WinRed — an online platform for giving to Republicans — even temporarily crashed... (MORE - details)

 

[James R]

?? Why would any of that matter? These are people who thought Trump really won in 2020, that the COVID vaccine causes COVID and genetic mutations, that masks don't work and that global warming is a Chinese plot to weaken America. Facts simply don't matter.

I was responding to something RFK said. I assume he doesn't think Trump won in 2020. Nevertheless, he appears to think that Trump's prosecution for falsifying business records was somehow driven by the Democratic party.

The people who still think that Trump won in 2020 are delusional and are probably beyond help at this point. They have fallen so far down the rabbit hole, I can't imagine what might pull them out of it.

 

[LaurieAG]

The case relating to Trump's business records was a state prosecution, not a federal one. The Biden administration was in no way involved in it, so it's drawing a long bow to suggest that it was a political prosecution instigated by the Democratic Party.

LOL, that's exactly what our politicians say when they want to distance themselves from their state counterparts despite having the exact same aims.