Trump guilty

[RobYob]

I'm now curious, but also terrified of googling it.

I made the mistake of googling Rob's first info on a work device.

Beany did it!

*Points and runs away*

[nuttinnew]

Beany did it!

That doesn't narrow down the options.

[RobYob]

Beany did it!

That doesn't narrow down the options.

[GG.]

Guilty on all 34 counts

But will anything actually happen?

There's nothing that stops him running for president again from jail

It'll martyr him in some quarters of course...

I didn't really know anything about this case as following the day to day mudslingings of America's feckless politicians does not interest me.

Having now cursorily looked into it - it seems that the payment of the money is not the issue and was not illegal but simply the fact that when Trump reimbursed his lawyer the invoices were for legal fees. In the world of legal accounting where disbursements for payment of out of pocket fees are added to invoices for billable time, this all seems like a storm(y daniels) in a teacup but I guess there is probably additional nuance that makes this naughtier but its hard to see that it rises above the level of a trivial breach.

His relations with Stormy Daniels are clearly not to his credit and presumably something went on to warrant paying her money for non-disclosure (again I haven't followed what came out in court though understand some spicy accusations were made which were not actually relevant to the felonies in question). Clearly he is not a moral person but I think that is stating something that everyone has already concluded and dispassionately, is very hard to see how this is in the same league as getting blowjobs from an intern and then lying about it (which has an additional level of breach of trust of those subordinate to you) for which Bill was cleared and continued with the rest of his term (despite obviously lying about it).

Again, hard to see that this really rises much above "meh" on the scandal scale. In my opinion Rayner's potential defrauding of us all of tax receipts is much worse, if true.

Its a bit depressing to think that incompetence and immorality are the two defining characteristics of the presidential candidates.

[Rich B]

34 counts. He just doesn't give a fuck!

[Rich B]

In my opinion Rayner's potential defrauding of us all of tax receipts is much worse, if true.

You've missed off the standard party line you're supposed to say after such random opinions. You can have:

- "and Keir Starmer doesn't have a plan"
or
- "we've put £900 back in the pocket of the average pocket"
or
- "we're lowering taxes and public services will have to carry on getting worse".

[DaveE]

I'm not sure about the legal ins and outs @GG.

I'm no expert on any of this, so please feel free to correct anything - I've been casually following it, but don't know the details

But this was a trial about falsifying business records - not something "moral" like Clinton denying having a BJ, which even though he lied about, I don't think either the act or the lie broke any law? (e.g. did he lie about it under oath, for example? I'm not sure)

There's also the "interfering in an election" angle too - in that he did all this so that what he and Stormy did wouldn't come out during his election run

So having sex with Stormy, paying someone some money for their silence is all above board (legally, if not ethically) - it's the way they did it, then falsified business records to hide it

AFAIK anyway

i.e. Cohen setting up a shell company, taking out a personal loan, transfering his loan into the company, and using the company to pay off Stormy. And then Trump reimbursing him and labelling it incorrectly etc

[GG.]

In my opinion Rayner's potential defrauding of us all of tax receipts is much worse, if true.

You've missed off the standard party line you're supposed to say after such random opinions. You can have:

- "and Keir Starmer doesn't have a plan"
or
- "we've put £900 back in the pocket of the average pocket"
or
- "we're lowering taxes and public services will have to carry on getting worse".

Commission of tax fraud being a bad thing is a random opinion? OK then...

[Rich B]

In my opinion Rayner's potential defrauding of us all of tax receipts is much worse, if true.

You've missed off the standard party line you're supposed to say after such random opinions. You can have:

- "and Keir Starmer doesn't have a plan"
or
- "we've put £900 back in the pocket of the average pocket"
or
- "we're lowering taxes and public services will have to carry on getting worse".

Commission of tax fraud being a bad thing is a random opinion? OK then...

You honestly think that someone being questioned and cleared over which home is considered their primary residence is worse than being convicted of 34 cases of intentional fraud totalling tens of thousands of dollars to cover up a dishonest presidential candidate during an election?

Ok.

[GG.]

I'm not sure about the legal ins and outs @GG.

I'm no expert on any of this, so please feel free to correct anything - I've been casually following it, but don't know the details

But this was a trial about falsifying business records - not something "moral" like Clinton denying having a BJ, which even though he lied about, I don't think either the act or the lie broke any law? (e.g. did he lie about it under oath, for example? I'm not sure)

There's also the "interfering in an election" angle too - in that he did all this so that what he and Stormy did wouldn't come out during his election run

So having sex with Stormy, paying someone some money for their silence is all above board (legally, if not ethically) - it's the way they did it, then falsified business records to hide it

AFAIK anyway

i.e. Cohen setting up a shell company, taking out a personal loan, transfering his loan into the company, and using the company to pay off Stormy. And then Trump reimbursing him and labelling it incorrectly etc

Yes I think the above is basically correct - they wanted to hide something legal they did and ended up committing misdemeanor crimes to hide the payment. Although from a technical legal standpoint this was elevated beyond a misdemeanour crime to what I assume is a Class E felony for which apparently you have to make out fraud and intent to commit another crime.

Fraud in the UK system is false statements from which you expect to enrich yourself or cause loss. I can't see where the element of enrichment or loss was going on here (unless the US definition differs) and what other crimes he was intending to committ by doing so, but anyway, its hardly terrifying criminality is it - as if everyone was not already aware that Donald J had murky business dealings. It doesn't seem like it is something that will move the dial politically in the US given how polarised everyone is already.

[GG.]

You've missed off the standard party line you're supposed to say after such random opinions. You can have:

- "and Keir Starmer doesn't have a plan"
or
- "we've put £900 back in the pocket of the average pocket"
or
- "we're lowering taxes and public services will have to carry on getting worse".

Commission of tax fraud being a bad thing is a random opinion? OK then...

someone being questioned and cleared over which home is considered their primary residence

You see, the above words you've chosen describe a potential intentional fraud offence in benign language.

I'm happy to retract the statment that what Rayner did was "worse" though as (1) I don't know why Trump was supposed to have committed a fraud offence here without digging further into it and (2) Rayner seems clearly to have misstated her primary residence. It is possible she did that to avoid paying tax, however, HMRC do seem to have cleared her as it is also possible that she could avoid paying the tax on some other basis.

Long story short they're both venal politicians with little to be admired. In fact for outright stupidity and manifest unfitness for public office they're probably a match for each other - just one inherited a lot of wealth.

[Rich B]

Quite amusing really in a political world full of Nadhim zahawi's £3m tax evading and Michelle Mones £200m dodgy PPE contracts, that the worst they can find is a £3.5k tax mistake 10 years ago...

[Sundayjumper]

I can't see where the element of enrichment or loss was going on here...

The enrichment was getting elected. The story coming out right before the 2016 election would have jeopardised that, the whole "catch & kill" was crucial to not derailing his campaign. On that basis DoJ were able to peg it as election interference and get it upgraded.

I'm viewing this like the classic Al Capone situation. Paying a porn star is a gazillion miles from the worst thing he's done, but it's one they've been able to nail him for. There's more on the way but he owns several of the Supreme Court judges and they're all slow-walking those cases so that they don't get heard until after the 2024 elections. If he gets elected (god help us) he'll pardon himself and will have carte blanche to do literally anything he wants. ANYTHING.

One of the other cases ongoing is about presidential immunity. His lawyers have claimed, on record in court, that a president can assassinate rivals and be immune from prosecution for it. That they could order an assassination, pardon everyone involved in carrying it out, and that would all be totally fine. It's bonkers that this is even up for discussion.

[GG.]

I can't see where the element of enrichment or loss was going on here...

The enrichment was getting elected.

Not sure you'd be able to prove causation on that.

Actually I think the language they're using "intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime" is an either or and apparently it is the "other crime" that is relevant here and that was breach of state electoral law. Again, I can't see where there is explained in any detail but I'm sure its available somewhere online.

This is interesting on immunity - quite dense and would take some time to read through but implies the concept of immunity is much narrower than is being made out:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB11121

[ZedLeg]

I take it that Nixon’s assertion that “when the president does it, that means it’s not illegal” has never been tested in court

[GG.]

Well he was pardoned by Gerald Ford to avoid that happening so I don't think anyone believes the President has blanket immunity to that extent - just in the conduct of his proper duties.

That said - I don't think anyone has been mental enough to suggest that the President can pardon himself so I think we're pushing the constitutional envelope here

[duncs500]

Let's face it, it's all a bit meh, but anything that is going to reduce the number of votes he gets even by a small fraction, is reducing the chances of that retard being the most powerful person in the world again.

[Sundayjumper]

I can't see where the element of enrichment or loss was going on here...

The enrichment was getting elected.

Not sure you'd be able to prove causation on that.

Well, he got convicted on all 34 charges. QED.

[V8Granite]

Imagine if the level of effort put to Trump to find issues was put to all politicians.

How did they get all the power, does any normal person actually get into power at all ?

Dave!

[RobYob]

Imagine if the level of effort put to Trump to find issues was put to all politicians.

I sense a disturbance in the laptopium.