• DontRedditMyLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Honestly I can’t understand why the “hush money” is all the rage. THIS is the crime that would put ANY other American into a supermax. This isn’t justice.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The hush money one is the first one to actually go to trial, so it’s mostly that. The documents case is basically suppressed until they can somehow get rid of this judge, and the other 2 cases are also being held up in places.

      The hush money case isn’t likely to put him in prison though, I don’t think there’s any precedent of a politician going to prison for that. And of course there’s going to be appeals that can easily push it until past November.

      • NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        And it is going to get overturned on appeal. It was an obvious political trial with a judge that donated to Biden, his daughter was bringing in millions because of the trial and the prosecutor ran for office pledging to take down Trump. That’s why Trumps bringing in record donations from small donors now.

        • Seleni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Don’t a lot of people run for office on a platform of arresting and convicting people who commit crimes, though? Or am I missing something?

        • Absolute dumbass commentary. The jury decided the case, not the judge. Trump literally had no defense to the allegations other than bald denials. The evidence that he did the crimes was written in paper and undeniable.

          • NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            You’re just buying everything the MSM is selling, hook line & sinker. They wouldn’t let Trump have much of a defense. They wouldn’t even let an expert witness testify for the defense. And sure, the jury decides the case based on the instructions given by the judge and this is the only time a judge has ever given instructions like the ones in this case. You really don’t know much about the justice system if you believe that the judge in a case doesn’t play a major role in how a case is decided.

                • barsquid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  No, that’s not correct. You are receiving delusional propaganda about disallowing expert witnesses from somewhere. Where is that from?

                  Bradley Smith was definitely allowed to testify as an expert, but the defense declined to call him. Here, since you like pretending to have read things direct from the court. He was not allowed to show up and instruct the jury, which is the same as decided in the prior cited cases in NY and OH.

                  Where is your delusional propaganda from? The things you are claiming are lies that Donald has been tweeting. So perhaps your delusions are coming direct from the source: a lifelong con man and fraud who committed election interference in 2016.

          • NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yeah, that won’t happen, they’ve got such a stranglehold on surveillance in this country, it would never get off the ground and things are just going to get worse. Most younger people and some older people to either keep their face buried into their phones on Facebook or Tiktok propaganda machines or they just buy into everything the MSM tells them so until we fix that stuff there’s really no hope of things getting better

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The “hush money” framing is such a cutesy, bullshit spin to neuter the actual repeated and unapologetic fraud here. Basic human and business ethics concerns to side for a moment, It’s purely fraud against the American people without remorse and it’s actual election interference.

      You wouldn’t say that a serial killer that stabs and kills their victims is on trial for “night night pokes”. How was this allowed to get casually accepted like this without challenge from society?

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Can you expand more on the election interference part?

        Totally understand inciting an insurrection to be interference, but using campaign funds to manage public relations problems seems a legitimate use.

            • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yeah, if he was upfront about things then there would be no criminal case

              However saying he set up shell companies to carry out falsification isn’t moralising

                • suction@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I don’t think anyone is still naive enough to think you can win over Republicunts. The way to stop Trump is to battle voter apathy and tear down barriers to vote, because the majority will not vote for Trump if they get to cast their votes.

        • krakenfury@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          That was not the legal issue of the case, though. Campaigns have to be very transparent with how they spend contributions, for obvious reasons, and it was easy to prove that this appropriation was obfuscated.

        • villainy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          using campaign funds to manage public relations problems seems a legitimate use

          It is.

          What he did was try to hide payments made to benefit his campaign. Would you consider illegally financing a campaign to be election interference?

          • spongebue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Not just the financing, but hiding the Stormy Daniels story during the election. They were using the National Enquirer (yes, I know) to promote Trump, make up stories to bring down his opponents, and hide the Stormy Daniels story (which was needed when the “grab them by the pussy” video leak caused chaos and arguably almost sunk the campaign). THAT’S where the election interference came into play.

            • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              They were using the National Enquirer (yes, I know) to promote Trump, make up stories to bring down his opponents, and hide the Stormy Daniels story (which was needed when the “grab them by the pussy” video leak caused chaos and arguably almost sunk the campaign)

              Isn’t this part a normal election strategy in the US? And not illegal itself?

              • spongebue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Honestly, I’m not sure how exactly the law is written. I believe that was a factor out of several that raised the misdemeanor of falsification into a felony (by doing so to conceal a crime). The judge’s instructions to the jury was that they needed to be unanimous that a crime was being concealed, but they didn’t have to agree on which one(s). Unless some members of the jury go to the media (for their sake, I sure hope they don’t) and that gets brought up, we’ll probably never know which way that wind was blowing.

                • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Thanks.

                  In the future I’m sure politicians on all sides will be paying people to keep certain facts quiet. I was just trying to confirm what is legal and what is illegal.