Donald Trump will be the first former president to face a criminal trial, judge rules
Trump’s New York case will begin in March
A New York judge ruled Thursday that Donald Trump will stand trial in March on charges related to the Stormy Daniels coverup. Assuming the case goes forward as scheduled, Trump will be the first former president ever to be criminally tried. It will also be the first criminal case to slot in place among the complicated judicial calendar Trump is facing in this election year, and it means Trump will almost certainly face a jury before Election Day. In three other jurisdictions—Georgia state court and federal courts in Florida, and Washington, D.C.—Trump has been indicted on charges related to the 2020 elections and his retention of classified documents, but the timetable for those cases remains unclear.
Cheers 🥃
34 indictments in this case, it’s not election interference one’s swamped in political bullshit. This one’s backed up by a mountain of evidence, and the testimony of the lawyer who arranged it and already went to jail for it. That’s right, Trump lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, who you might remember for way the fuck back. Remember when we all were saying that this might be the guy who could assfuck and take down Trump? Yeah, well, now that’s finally about to happen.
And, with a solid 1/3 of the total criminal indictments against Trump all in this one trial, at least some of which is likely to result in conviction (due to the fact there’s no way Trump can slide on all 34 charges), this is very likely the beginning of a reversal of luck for Trump. I am finally glad to see it. 
But, we’ll see. I’m cautious, but hopeful. 
Be careful with that “no way Trump can slide on all 34 charges” stuff.
All you need is ONE juror to hold their ground and it’s a hung jury. You get one dedicated MAGAt creating an 11-1 hung jury and Señor BuildThaWall can delay prison with mistrial after mistrial.
How do you even have a jury trial for a president? isnt the jury supposed to not have a preexisting opinion of the person being charged?
From a jury I was being considered for (sexual assault), is not that you have no opinion, it is that you think you can be objective based on the evidence.
A jury only needs to convince the judge and both parties that they can rule impartially on the law.
Sadly true. However given jury selection is a thing, you can bet that prosecution did their best to weed out any overly biased jurors.
I mean, nothing is perfect (it's humans all the way down, and humans are flawed), but for a trial like this you can bet both sides went over everyone with the biggest magnifying glass they could find.
The need for a unanimous jury varies by jurisdiction and crime.
One of the cases in NY his lawyers failed to request a jury trial, and is being adjudicated by the judge who clearly has no love for the defendant, and seems to be doing everything he can to avoid an appeal, much less a mistrial. That one is sticking .
That was a civil trial, not criminal.
Well shit.
That’s true, but in every case against him with a jury so far, he’s still lost, even though a few jurors were trump supporters. When presented with the evidence in a forum where they have to listen, where that evidence wasn’t filtered through their lunatic talking heads, and where they couldn’t immediately run to their extremist forums to filter and reinterpret it for them, they’ve realised that oh yeah, this guy is a criminal and they’ve been duped.
I’m not concerned about rogue jurors. Many of his supporters can come back to reality when that reality is no longer filtered through a bullshit lens. Watch The Brainwashing of My Dad on
Netflix(e: it’s no longer on Netflix. So Freevee, Prime, or Apple TV, I guess. I added the IMdB link, which includes places to watch it now). It covers much of that effect.This is one indictment, with 34 counts. And it's probably worth noting that if he were to be convicted, the charges would likely be consolidated at sentencing; 34 counts does not mean that he would be sentenced to 34x as much jail time. Not to mention that since these all stem from the same set of facts, it's most likely all or nothing.
At his age and health, only a couple of years would effectively be a death sentence.
Having to live in a cell without his luxuries, entourage, and Diet Coke button would break him pretty quickly. He’d likely have a heart attack from the stress and indignation far before even a short sentence was over.
I would watch that reality TV show.
This guy has so many 'firsts', too bad they are all horrible firsts that no one should have ever done.
I hope his next”first” is “ex president sent to prison.”
And his last is “first ex president to die in prison”
I'm still holding out for first presidential candidate to croak weeks from election day
I hope he has a stroke from his gluttonous lifestyle and gets locked in syndrome for at least 5 years.
Being physically unable able to communicate would be the worst punishment imaginable for him.
If we set up a go fund me to buy him hamberders… we could maybe get that done
Is there any chance on earth that he actually goes to jail for even a day?
I think it's way more likely that he gets sentenced to house arrest, which he could serve at Mar a Lago. The other option is to have Secret Service agents following him around inside a prison trying to protect him from the other inmates (and possibly the guards), and I don't think either the prisons or the Secret Service want to deal with that.
Actually they could throw him in a maximum security prison and condem him to solitary confinement (for his own protection you know) and that would negate the need for the Secret Service
The Secret Service would still need to be around to protect him from the guards & the ghost of Epstein.
Maybe a disgraced ex president shouldn't receive an honor guard?
ADX Florence sitting in the corner patiently.
"Yeah, he's a convicted felon, but we can't put him in jail because that would inconvenience the Secret Service."
Nope. Sorry it's a burden for them, but they can figure it out. Make a prison out of the brig on an abandoned military base in the middle of nowhere with him as the only prisoner. It worked for Rudolph Hess.
It's really not even that big of a burden. They already have wings for people like former cops and child molesters, so he'll fit in nicely. They'll just need a chair for the SS detail.
Prison is for poor people, not presidents. I think most people understand that not everyone is equal under the law at this point in time.
Ulysses S. Grant set the precedent that a sitting president can be prosecuted in 1872 while he was president, and got pulled over, for the third time, for "speeding on a horse inside the city limits of Washington DC." He told the officer that attempted to let him go, that Congress had literally passed article 1983 the previous year, and that even The POTUS doesn't have immunity. Sure it was a speeding ticket, but that's still precedent, with a statute to back it up.
The statute in question needs to be reviewed by The SCOTUS, as they were provided incorrectly edited wording of that statute, ommiting 16 crucial words of the law, in the case of Harlow vs. Fitzgerald in 1982, and illegally set up the Qualified Immunity Doctrine.
Fuck that, execute the fucker then
I thought he had to forfeit Mar A Lago because he falsely claimed it to be a primary residence which it isn't
Not forfeited but he's convicted of fraud for the false valuation, and the sum is high enough he may be forced to sell it to cover the judgement
Thank you for clarifying 😊
For this? No. For the Georgia case? It's a real possibility if he doesn't get elected.
If he gets jail time for a state case he can't pardon himself. It'd be interesting how the state would handle it. Would they let him defer his prison sentence until after his term?
There's no precedent whatsoever, so no one knows what would happen. Meanwhile Trump would absolutely use every tool at his disposal as president to disrupt the process. It's hard to see that not heading into a constitutional crisis.
I think Fani Willis screwed that up.
None at all. As a last resort they'll (successfully) make a incompetency plea, which is true. The man isn't competent enough to tie his shoes without adult supervision.
In a sane world, an incompetency plea would bar someone from office
That would mean:
Too incompetent to be found guilty of a crime, but still somehow competent enough to hold arguably the most important position in the world.
Please make it make sense.
That's not how incompetency pleas work.
He has dementia. It is how incompetency pleas work.
Not really.
A diagnosis of dementia would not automatically preclude someone from standing trial. Being incompetent to stand trial means that you can't assist your defense. I think that's a pretty high bar. Trump is obviously not one of our sharpest minds but he can't be competent enough to make speeches on TV (even if they are rants) while simultaneously be incompetent such that he can't discuss his case with his lawyers.
Citation needed.
I mean, have you not been paying attention for the last 4 years? He's been on a mental decline for a while now. It's just a matter of time before he has a sundowning tantrum on live TV.
Also, I know serval people in the mental health and elderly care fields, and they've known for a while now.
Being an asshole doesn't mean you have dementia, nor does that fact that you don't like Trump mean that he has a degenerative mental condition. Sorry, believing that is on the same level as believing qanon.
All you have to do is watch interviews of him from the 2000s to know that he's experienced significant cognitive decline.
He's always been a stupid narcissistic asshole, but he's clearly demented.
Also, I guess you missed the part where people with experience in the subject confirmed what I said.
Yes, but not in this case. Some of the other cases will get him there and it will be glorious.
But if he becomes president he can grant himself immunity correct?
One of those unanswered questions is whether a president can pardon themself. This has never been tried so it's never been tested. I presume that the answer is no.
I thought the consensus among experts was that a sitting president can do that.
He still couldn't pardon himself for state crimes in GA though. Even the governor can't pardon him in GA. That state requires a board to approve it or something like that.
SCOTUS: No but actually yes
We just need to make sure he doesn't become president
The most likely situation is barred from running for President while he continues to spew lies and vitriol from the sidelines. We also can’t ignore the possibility of his progeny running for office thanks to the dynastic view these scumbag wealthy types tend to take of their money and power.
There is nothing about this case that would bar him from running for office. This is unrelated to Jan 6.
No. Best we can hope for is to bog him down in appeals and lawsuits, till his heart pops from a big Mac
Particularly enjoyable is no more of this jet-setting on campaign bullshit in lieu of sitting in a series of dreary courtrooms for the rest of his days
Wonder how that will go. If he doesn't show up to court he WILL lose. If he does go to court, he will be able to campaign a lot less
The end result of someone never forced to compromise or make an irreversible decision.
They will eventually meet an irresistable force and the only thing that ever made him immoveable was that same irresistable force that is now itself conveying him
Most cases don't require the dependent to show up for all of the court dates. So long as legal representation is present. Aka just the lawyer can show up for many. Arraignment, declaration of guilty/not guilty
Will he be able to resist tho? Honestly I cant figure this one out. Whats going to be more important to him? Campaigning or screaming at the judge about how amazingly right and Elvislike he is?
Repercussions make us all better people. Hope you enrich your life soon Trump [hopefully, in jail].
Well somebody had to be first and I'm pretty sure he has a Ricky Bobby mindset.
Good for him! I always knew he could do it
Really shouldnt of been the first though, considering all the prior presidents who had some hand in war crimes while in office.
Will never happen anywhere.
Yep. The entire gov has decided that decisions made by the president "related to nat sec" can never be prosecuted. On one hand it makes sense on the other hand it opens the door to literal genocide.
I know, but I can dream.
Some religious types are pointing-out a page on www.BenjaminLCorey.com which identifies that Trump's matching the anti-christ/biblical-abomination of the End Time rather well..
However, until he is made illegal to be ruler of the US, there is one of those items ( from Daniel ) that hasn't come-true yet.
According to that page, iirc, Daniel states that ~ he is not even legal to be king ~ or something like that, and that hasn't happened, so therefore there is still 1 mismatch between the Christian biblical prophecies-set & the evidence. ( the Jewish set doesn't include any of the New Testament stuff, hence it is the Christian set which is more-completely predicting/accusing ).
I'm only pointing this out.
I didn't believe until just-recently, that authority in the US would have the spine to make it illegal for him to be ruler, but now it looks like 1 or more of the .. 91 criminal charges, is it .. may stick, so now I'm having to accept that that ancient scientifically-testable-prediction-set may actually hit all its points, this year.
Just observing, is all, not anything else.
_ /\ _
And be presidenr again. Also only pressident to win 3 times, not bad for the guy ;)👌👌 🐸
Damn dude I’m pretty sure they taught us about FDR in like 5th grade.
LOL people totally didn't get your joke and took you seriously. So very strange.
In fact, this is a good one. For those who didn't understand: Trump claimed to win the popular vote in the last two elections, which he didn't. Another election is coming up...
It takes one profile click to see this dude dropping slurs and randomly accusing criminals of being immigrants.
You act like I should have investigated their profile for some reason.
If you’re going to assert everyone else was wrong with the obvious reading of the comment and that he was clearly joking you should at least bother to check if you’re right. 🤷♂️
I can read, understand how context works, and have knowledge of events over the past 6 - 8 years. And yes, they misinterpreted him and downvoted, then other people clicked the button without reading it. If you want to tell me that this doesn't happen, I will believe that you simply have no experience with social media.
Worse: people have thanked me for explaining it so this really is just a "you" thing.
I don't follow how you seeing a MAGA dude making a MAGA comment and making up a story about how he was really joking is somehow a reflection of my inexperience with social media, but alright. 👍
Yeah dude you're on a weird thing here. It was a funny comment. Learn to laugh and stop being so edgy.
Don't worry I understood this immediately and totally agree with your interpretation. (As if the ;) wasn't obvious)
People just love to drag dissenters on the Internet.
It's because the person I responded to decided that the original comment was MAGA for some reason because of the person's post history or something that actually has no bearing at all on this thread.
Damn, I missed it too. Flew right over my head.
Oh shit, you're not coping with this well are you? Suicide watch time for magatards?
Smugness with undertones of fragility