The Various Court Cases Against Donald Trump

[Ruserious]

Quite a few witnesses not called to the stand that were key players

Wouldn't it be up to Trumps legal defense team to call them to the stand if they were so important to the defence? Were they blocked or something?

 

[fastpitch17]

Here I am, a lifelong Republican who wants nothing to do with what that name now was hijacked maga.

I have always been one of those never Trumpers. I never liked him from way before he won the election. I have never seen a single episode of the apprentice. If he was to win again, I feel sorry for the US and it's Democracy. For trump it is a power trip. A route to personal gain. A fantasy fulfillment to be like the dictators and authoritarian leaders he so admires. He surrounds himself with yesmen and they bow down to him.

I personally doubt trump wins this next election. I would not be surprised if many of those voices in the US Government that praise trump publicly vote against him. No one would know. A lot of people in trump's orbit secretly want him to lose. Right now they just won't chance the condemnation from him.

Biden didn't win the last election because that is who everyone wanted as their president. No, it was because of all that didn't want trump to stay in there. Biden is too old as is trump. I have been complaining about the age of US politicians for as long as I can remember. Trump is only a few years younger than Biden but trump has lost it mentally a lot more than Biden has. I will admit that Biden has gotten a lot more accomplished that trump did by a longshot.

Trump's presidency was a disaster. He never led, only made excuses and lame statements. He was an embarrassment to the entire world. He demonstrated his weakness by submitting to strongmen leaders. While there were certainly some presidents who left a lot to be desired as leaders. None of them put the kind of stain trump did on the office of US President.

Trump's policies and actions while in office never affected me what so ever. I guess I shouldn't care. Wrong, those policies have effects on my family and my nation as a whole. It hurt to hear about so many dying simply because a US President wanted to sweep it under a rug and then not ever admitting he was wrong. I will never understand his tax cuts that only aided the rich when it is the Middle Class who finance the nation. I don't agree to sticking it to the rich to pay more to finance the nation either. All paying their fair share without all the loopholes in the tax code seems fair for me. Billion dollar profit companies should not be paying 0 in taxes. You see, no matter what I am an American Patriot. An American Veteran. A brother of a Veteran. A child of a WW II Veteran, and a grandchild of a WW I Veteran. So, I worry about the welfare of the US inhabitants.
.

 

[fastpitch17]

Biden has a Southern boarder problem. That's for sure. A disaster in migrant policies. That said, he inherited that disaster. Trump had it, Obama had it, Bush had it. Trump made it uglier with his people that wanted to separate families and put kids in cages but I think we all know trump will only treat a white person humanely. Biden did try to get some changes. More changes and tougher enforcement at the boarder than gas ever been introduced. Voted down by the same people who constantly complain about the immigrant problem. All from orders from trump because he needs it to campaign on.

No, always a never Trumpers. Feel bad for those that still believe there is a chance to bring back the republican party as we're knew it.

The US if it really wanted a better path would put in place upper age limits for every government office. Not how old they could be to run, but the limit of their age at the end of their term. While they are at it, term limits for each office. Just too many older than dirt politicians sucking the life out of Americans to line their pockets and feel important

 

[fastpitch17]

Wouldn't it be up to Trumps legal defense team to call them to the stand if they were so important to the defence? Were they blocked or something?

The judge blocked one from a particular part of his testimony because it would not be if importance towards the charges. He did allow other testimony from this witness. None of the others were called and yes, that would have been on trump's lawyers, everyone knows trump directs his lawyers on his defense. The only time his listens us when they suggest he not testify. He's a self incriminating fool in a chair testifying.

 

[snpark]

Wouldn't it be up to Trumps legal defense team to call them to the stand if they were so important to the defence? Were they blocked or something?

I think half of them already in jail

Plus Trump likes to play the martyr so later he can say he wasn't allowed to testify and so and so wasn't called as a witness.

 

[MamangDudul]

The US if it really wanted a better path would put in place upper age limits for every government office. Not how old they could be to run, but the limit of their age at the end of their term. While they are at it, term limits for each office. Just too many older than dirt politicians sucking the life out of Americans to line their pockets and feel important

While I get the age limit (or at least more strict mental health evaluations )I still would doubt that younger politicians would do any better or save us. Iam wondering if polictians can save us anyway, but that's another discussion.
Aren't younger people these days even more ideological and full of BS? I mean I don't see much coming from them except save the climate, more immigrants and more LGBTQ and other "first world problems" on one side. The other side more or less wants less of the mentioned things but I don't see anyone trying to pull the roots.

I fear it needs a lot of hard cuts and decisions to save what could be saved and I just don't see anyone up for that nor do I believe it is realistically possible.

 

[Hawk256]

While I get the age limit (or at least more strict mental health evaluations )I still would doubt that younger politicians would do any better or save us. Iam wondering if polictians can save us anyway, but that's another discussion.
Aren't younger people these days even more ideological and full of BS? I mean I don't see much coming from them except save the climate, more immigrants and more LGBTQ and other "first world problems" on one side. The other side more or less wants less of the mentioned things but I don't see anyone trying to pull the roots.

I fear it needs a lot of hard cuts and decisions to save what could be saved and I just don't see anyone up for that nor do I believe it is realistically possible.

The new Democratic mayor of Boston doesn't think criminals should be prosecuted for theft and sees no need for a gang unit with the PD. How much of that kind of winning can we take?

Boston Democratic mayor says criminals should not be prosecuted for theft

Boston Democratic mayor says criminals should not be prosecuted for theft

www.yahoo.com

 

[jstar]

You can post a link to yahoo but we all know these kind of ahem … news bulletins come from Fox, New York Post, Lunatic Outpost, c.s.

In fact she didn’t say or state anything. She filled in a questionnaire once, in which she (dis)agreed on certain statements, based on proposals from others.

Nobody ever asked her or got her opinion on these matters or got any explanation. But it is so much easier to blame the woke mayor, right?

 

[Hawk256]

You can post a link to yahoo but we all know these kind of ahem … news bulletins come from Fox, New York Post, Lunatic Outpost, c.s.

In fact she didn’t say or state anything. She filled in a questionnaire once, in which she (dis)agreed on certain statements, based on proposals from others.

Nobody ever asked her or got her opinion on these matters or got any explanation. But it is so much easier to blame the woke mayor, right?

So as long as she didn't say it out loud and only put it in writing that she agreed certain crimnials shouldn't be prosecuted for theft; that is the same as her never saying it at all? That is that party logic that both sides use. Surely you have some real argument better than that. I'm certianly not saying that your logic is weak but if someone else propsed it, I would probably agree.

 

[fastpitch17]

My beef has always been with the US Legislators. The ones that are supposed to do the work for a better and smoothly run nation. For a long long time one could see the far right and left fringe forming and people just not paying attention and just ignoring them when they felt the fringe has not voice in any matter. That fringe, due to the blind eye of the voters grew and became a faint line and then a solid line. Still, their numbers in comparison to the Center Left and Right were not taken seriously. They grew. They got louder until everyone was shocked to realize they were there. Too Late.

The left fringe became known as the progressives. Progressive in basically a free for all. Open immigration, elimination of fossil fuels, free education for all, and anti spending to support any nation involved with warfare.

That right fringe became super conservatives with the likes of a small group with key seats in Congress called the Tea Party. They didn't last too long before being overwhelmed by today's maga. While maga claims to be conservative and Republican, they have reached far outside what the Republican party once held dear. Lower national spending and smaller government. They have allowed a someone to be their voice and to lead them going against all they once supported. This leader spoke to a select group of followers and said things they wanted to hear and he opened up a door to hate in America. He easily conquered to white supremacists, the anti science, and anti Muslim crowds. The rest were brought in by agreeing with some things and then falling into the rest. He preyed on the uneducated and uninformed. He preyed on misconception and fears. He brought along government supporters through fear of not getting support for themselves from the followers. He put himself above any laws at every corner and got support for it. This leader was able to kill off a million people due to inaction but still his followers rejoiced. He produced nothing positive for the US and still his followers raised him to a supreme being. His crossing lines and embracing dictators brought I'll favor from the World's Democracies. Today he has proclaimed that if elected again he would infact be a dictator. He has built and is using his cult to get power for him personally.

The US has a Supreme Court now not just with a Conservative Majority but with a maga majority with some who have openly supported trump in actions and decisions. Justices that have openly taken bribes and accept influences from outside the court. Justices who have spouses that are active in turning over a legitimate election. That is a house almost impossible to clean.

If trump loses you will see the same old thing about a fixed election even after state officials have put so many policies and laws in place to favor Republican voters. There are calls for civil wars if he loses and those doing the calling for the most part are those that will sit back and watch while the weak minded do the charging. People are too stupid to even imagine that this time they will be leading a charge into actual armed and ready to kill police and military members. I see that if a group like on Jan 6 were to charge a federal building, the front roll would be cut down and all the remaining scatter like rats.

In November we will know the path the US will be on.

 

[John indonesia]

If Trump gets in again I don't think anyone will be laughing

The Russian will be.
I believe Trump is linked to Russia through something. It's more likely to be money rather than golden showers, but he is linked to them.
I can see a second presidency as ending NATO, Ukraine in a serious mess, and Israel rearmed and allowed to do whatever they want.
Trump breaks norms, so I can see him releasing the CIA files that show the NED destabilised Ukraine.

The trick with guessing a real situation is looking at how state run media reports stories.

WATCH London protesters rally to support Trump (VIDEO)

British right-wing activists have rallied in support of Donald Trump’s presidential bid

www.rt.com

WATCH London protesters rally to support Trump (VIDEO)

British right-wing activists have rallied in support of Donald Trump’s presidential bid

www.rt.com

Musk says jury verdict against Trump damages US legal system

The US businessman noted that if even an ex-president of the United States can be prosecuted "over such a trivial matter - motivated by politics, rather than justice," anyone "is at risk of a similar fate"

tass.com

Their government controlled press doesn't like to print negative news about Trump, but pushes the positive.
At the very least, the US political right is assisting Russia, but it's quite likely Russia has a hold on Trump.

We already know the NRA was illegally funding Trump with Russian money, and there's very likely to be a lot more to be found.


Quite why the US right wants a foreign agent in power is unfathomable to me.

 

[jstar]

So as long as she didn't say it out loud and only put it in writing that she agreed certain crimnials shouldn't be prosecuted for theft; that is the same as her never saying it at all? That is that party logic that both sides use. Surely you have some real argument better than that. I'm certianly not saying that your logic is weak but if someone else propsed it, I would probably agree.

You really don’t get it do you? She never stated that burglars or so should not be prosecuted. They got hold of questionnaires in which it seems she was one of the respondents.

And the questioning only allowed a YES/NO answer for the rather complicated issues which are not black or white. Ones that are only can be answered with a proviso. (Perhaps that was her mistake, to give time to something like this. Another reason I never answer the ‘questionnaires’ on this forum by students.)

questionnaire:
“Do you agree with the statement that jstar is an @sshole?”
Only reply with a ticked box for YES or leave the box empty.
Hmm, sometimes he can be yes:
Yeah but only if he didn’t have his coffee yet
Normally not but he could react like that on certain content
When he did not take his medication
Not to me but I heard some stories
Absolutely

 

[Hawk256]

You really don’t get it do you? She never stated that burglars or so should not be prosecuted. They got hold of questionnaires in which it seems she was one of the respondents.

And the questioning only allowed a YES/NO answer for the rather complicated issues which are not black or white. Ones that are only can be answered with a proviso. (Perhaps that was her mistake, to give time to something like this. Another reason I never answer the ‘questionnaires’ on this forum by students.)

questionnaire:
“Do you agree with the statement that jstar is an @sshole?”
Only reply with a ticked box for YES or leave the box empty.
Hmm, sometimes he can be yes:
Yeah but only if he didn’t have his coffee yet
Normally not but he could react like that on certain content
When he did not take his medication
Not to me but I heard some stories
Absolutely

I do get it we just disagree on what constitutes someone "stating" something. If you agree with a statement proposed to you then you have basically given your stance on the subject. Anything else just sounds like sour grapes for getting called out. Remember when they had to define "sex" to Bill Clinton? It's a lot like that.

 

[jstar]

Now that’s a good example. For many ultra religious groups it’s penetration. Not being playful with a cigar.

Can you imagine that someone digs up a survey that you filled in 10 years ago and uses that completely out of context?

Something more to the original point; in Europe it is already the case that many perpetrators of violence or petty theft walk on the streets not even 2 hours after they have been arrested. Very frustrating obviously for the victims and the citizens. But the lack of manpower in the judicial systems and departments make that choices have to be made. And if the government does not provide the budget and resources those cases will never go to trial because of a prioritization.

On that: I drove in Brussels In the evening. At a crossing with a traffic light I moved passed the white line to wait for the oncoming traffic to go left. When I did, the light was already red. The police car behind me forwarded the car info and I received a letter from the Brussels‘ justice of police I had to present myself at court on 20 October. That was 4 months later so I did, the clerk did not find my case though. When studying my letter he noticed the October date was one year later! Oops. When I returned a year later, I was sentenced to a fine. I never received the request for payment.

Another one? I was driving with colleagues in Louisville Kentucky in a Hertz rental. Some other car made a mistake and hit us from the back. There was a denial of fault from the other driver which led to date in court and obviously I did not come back from California to be a witness in that. So automatically he was acquitted.

 

[John indonesia]

Trump is the first to be convicted, but not the first that should have been.
Clinton is an obvious one, but Nixon was closer than he would have liked.
Biden is a serious candidate to be the second as he's very corrupt and, if Trump gets in, I can see papers released that prove it.
Trump is extremely vindictive so I believe putting the whole of US policy from the last ten years at risk is very likely not going to be a problem for him. In fact, I'm unsure Trump will think that far ahead in his rage.

 

[Brian86]

@Hawk256
Do you want to know what she was actually agreeing to? It's far more complex and rigorous than your (and NYP, Fox) summary. Here is the DA's plan that the questionnaire was addressing, read particularly pages 25-27 and Appendix C for the details on this subject: https://files.suffolkdistrictattorney.com/The-Rachael-Rollins-Policy-Memo.pdf

There are plenty of those crimes you mentioned that will still be prosecuted, but many of those non-violent crimes that a clear result of mental health, substance abuse, or extreme poverty will be sent through social programs rather than criminal justice.

After one understands the strategy in context it's still entirely possible to disagree it is the best approach, but it's completely disingenuous to portray it the way conservative media has. The goal is clearly not to "allow crime", but to solve the root issues behind many non-violent crimes.

For instance, the shoplifting policy:

When the item taken is recovered and returned, the individual appears to have substance use issues, mental health issues, and/or the item is taken out of necessity (e.g. food, diapers, childcare related items, etc.) due to a lack of employment or resources, the policy is for the ADA to presumptively decline the charge(s).

When the items taken are NOT out of necessity, AND:
1. there is a pattern of this type of conduct (shoplifting, larceny,etc.) within the past three years, OR;
2. the item was unrecovered or damaged,

the ADA can move to a pre-arraignment restitution agreement thattakes the individual’s ability to pay into consideration.

• If the offense occurred as a result of poverty, mental illness, and/or addiction, the ADA will work in consultation with a program and/or social worker to identify pre-arraignment diversion programoptions.

 

[Hawk256]

@Hawk256
Do you want to know what she was actually agreeing to? It's far more complex and rigorous than your (and NYP, Fox) summary. Here is the DA's plan that the questionnaire was addressing, read particularly pages 25-27 and Appendix C for the details on this subject: https://files.suffolkdistrictattorney.com/The-Rachael-Rollins-Policy-Memo.pdf

There are plenty of those crimes you mentioned that will still be prosecuted, but many of those non-violent crimes that a clear result of mental health, substance abuse, or extreme poverty will be sent through social programs rather than criminal justice.

After one understands the strategy in context it's still entirely possible to disagree it is the best approach, but it's completely disingenuous to portray it the way conservative media has. The goal is clearly not to "allow crime", but to solve the root issues behind many non-violent crimes.

For instance, the shoplifting policy:

Seriously 6 of one, half a dozen of another to me. Don't get me started on substance abuse. It's a bad choice that people make. I made it for a few years myself. There was only one person that could fix the problem and I will only give you one guess on who that person was.

Do you really think as many problems as we have running a single justice system that we could effectively have multiple groups to deal with different crimes based on the person's monetary or mental status? Things would end up being much, much worse. We already have judges that can take circumstances into account and often do. Do we really need more than that? We need less governement, not more. We have already proven that we aren't good at it.

 

[Brian86]

We need less governement, not more.

Then you should approve of that DA's policy memo, it's less government.

 

[MamangDudul]

Then you should approve of that DA's policy memo, it's less government.

Less government that makes it harder and harder for your average Joe to get by and stay sane. Of course not less government that makes life hard for criminals.

 

[Hawk256]

Then you should approve of that DA's policy memo, it's less government.

How is having 3 divisions of a group handling different cases based on the "type" of crime less government? Are they going to send the regualr police, the metal health responders or the economically deprived unit? Then you get separate courts, DAs an lawyers for each division? Seems you are adding more government by a power of 3. There needs to be one justice system that applies to everyone equally with judges able to make case by case rulings. You know kind of how it already is?