5 ms·

Why do i feel like this will skyrocket his poll. Is he still eligible to be on the ballot, while going through the appeal? Appeal easily takes him to 2025.

candiddevmike 2y ago
Idk, you'd think there would come a point when enough people say he's a fraud that it gets through to his base. He's now a convicted felon, representing the party of "law and order". That shouldn't end well.
- newfriend 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - spartanatreyu 2y ago
    He signed the checks though.
  - clipsy 2y ago
    Yes, people with a sliver of a brain do indeed think that.
  - voisin 2y ago
    Care to elaborate for those of us who can’t fathom what you are referring to?
- mc32 2y ago
  Aren’t the charges misdemeanors?
  - throwup238 2y ago
    All 34 charges are first degree felonies. Falsifying business records, up to four years per count, with a maximum sentence of 20 if served consecutively.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      They're class E felonies, the lowest class, with the lowest penalty. Jail time is rare. First-degree only refers to "falsifying business records in the first degree", which is otherwise a misdemeanor.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - throwup238 2y ago
        > Jail time is rare. The number I've heard is 10% of such cases get jail time, but that includes plea deals which are themselves >90% of cases. It's a first time conviction but 34 charges with all the antics he's pulled? Who knows what happens.
    - lamontcg 2y ago
      There's actual sentencing guidelines that can be used to calculate what punishment he's more likely to see. It won't be 20 years.
      - throwup238 2y ago
        Sentencing guidelines are a Federal thing. New York doesn't have any except those laid out in the legal code (the 4/20 maximum I mentioned earlier). I doubt he'll do any actual prison time, but those are the maximums in NY.
  - mikece 2y ago
    And past the statute of limitations unless they can be presented as felonies. Stand by for things to get very weird... I just hope they don’t get “kinetic.”
    - asdvlk34gl 2y ago
      [flagged]
- ungreased0675 2y ago
  Have you had a conversation about the trial with a Trump supporter?
  - acdha 2y ago
    I think the more interesting question is how many of the people who aren’t ardent supporters will still vote for him. There are enough Republicans who didn’t like him but still wanted their party to win to shift an election which was already tight. This goes double for anyone who is not a complete diehard on the subject of abortion and might be asking themselves why they’re carrying water for a convicted felon, especially since they already got the tax cuts.
  - lamontcg 2y ago
    Trump supporters aren't going to sway the election. They were always going to vote for him and will always vote for him. The election is going to get decided at the margins by the kind of people who can still get swayed one way or the other to vote or not vote for one or the other candidate. Actually convicting him can give a solid reason for someone who would have only very reluctantly voted for him to switch to Biden or just not vote at all. Old school Reagan conservatives who find that voting for an actual convicted felon is something they just won't do. It does create an additional nice red line of illegality, which should still matter to a few folks. It will cause some ethical problems with some Republicans for voting for him, and it really doesn't take much. The 2016 election was decided by a few 10,000s of people in 3-4 different states. Where it can backfire, though, is if the conviction is overturned on appeal.
    - ungreased0675 2y ago
      Do you think Alexey Navalny‘s conviction for embezzlement caused him to lose any supporters? Probably not. It was a transparently political use of the justice system to sideline an opponent. People I’ve talked to feel the same way about Trump. I’ve asked why vote in the primary for a candidate who lost the midterms and his last election, and the sentiment is that “We can’t let them get away with it” meaning the lawfare against Trump.
- krapp 2y ago
  His base thinks he's a victim of a conspiracy by the "deep state" to convict him on fraudulent charges by a kangaroo court. They don't for a second believe he's guilty of anything except being too much of a radical iconoclast for "the man" to handle. >inb4 flags.
- voisin 2y ago
  A significant number of people who told pollsters they were planning to vote for Trump said they would change their mind if he was convicted in court. The question is whether these voters are in swing states.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  I mean, I assume his base know he's a fraud. He has never made all that much of a secret of it. They just don't care. Like, approximately no-one, you'd assume, is, at this point, saying: "I'm voting for Trump, the noted honest legitimate businessman... wait, he was convicted of a CRIME? Well then I'm not voting for him." His voters know he's a crook.
  - shrimp_emoji 2y ago
    Exactly. He's a protest vote against the establishment. All that just makes him a better protest.
TheAlchemist 2y ago
[flagged]
- rat87 2y ago
  How was it politically motivated? He was guilty. If anything is politically motivated it's the Florida judge appointed by Trump delaying his secret document stealing trial past the election.
- spartanatreyu 2y ago
  Even assuming the case where it was indeed politically motivated to bring a case forwards in the first place, a jury of peers had to be selected by the lawyers of both sides. And that jury of his peers found him guilty, unanimously, on all counts. Thanks to that jury selection process, there's no informed way to claim that the jury was politically motivated so in the end his loss is going to hurt his chances.
  - judgemerchan 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - clipsy 2y ago
      None of that happened.
      - clipsy 2y ago
        Downvotes but zero evidence to the contrary; quelle surprise.
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        What is asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. So far as I saw from following the trial (not super closely, so I may have missed something), no defense witnesses were prevented from testifying if they had relevant evidence. (You don't just get to put, say, Trump's hairstylist on the stand, unless they have something to say that touches on admissible evidence.) The part that seems more in line with the claim by the green account was not about witnesses, but lines of argument. There's a claim called "advice of counsel". In this case, it would be claiming that Trump's lawyers told him to do this. Well, in a criminal trial, you don't get to just claim "my lawyer told me to do it" and that's automatically a get-out-of-jail-free card. No, the prosecution gets to examine that claim. In particular, they get to put your lawyers on the stand and ask them questions, under oath, even though those questions touch on matters that would normally be covered by attorney-client confidentiality. [That is, asserting that defense leads to loss of attorney-client confidentiality in areas covered by the claim of advise of counsel.] Trump's attorneys chose not to assert that defense. They told the judge, before the trial, that they weren't going to use that defense. Then, during the trial, they wanted to make an argument that was something like "recommendation of counsel", where it would sound to the jury like "advice of counsel", but the prosecution wouldn't get to grill the lawyers. That is, they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. The judge didn't let them do it. Trump's lawyers tried, at least twice with different wording, and the judge blocked it. Rightly so - you don't get to skirt the restrictions by trying to re-word the label.
shadowgovt 2y ago
Eligibility to be on the ballot varies from state to state. But he can of course be written in, and it will be interesting to see what happens if he becomes the People's choice via write-in on the ballot of states where a felony bars you from the ballot. I believe in general he could still be elected because there's no federal law against a felon holding the presidency and technically in States, you vote for the slate of electors (all of whom are eligible to serve), not the person they are voting for.
spartanatreyu 2y ago
A guilty verdict is likely to motivate a large section of his own base to vote for him, but will also hurt his chances to sway undecided voters to vote for him. In the end, it's going to depend on how many are motivated to vote for the democrats, and how many are motivated to vote for/against trump.
- friend_and_foe 2y ago
  I don't think so. I think more people are going to see this as a politically motivated kangaroo show trial than not. It takes some votes away, but it gives him others, at best I think it chsnges the calculus by roughly 0.
  - tmottabr 2y ago
    nah.. people that would vote for him because of this would already be voting for him any way.. i doubt he gains much votes because of this.. but he will sure loose votes on swing states..
    - friend_and_foe 2y ago
      I think you underestimate the number of people who thought "they can't impeach a president for getting a blowjob" and actually meant it rather than using it as a tool of political expediency. Those people don't see this as justice. I think more people are principled than not.
tjpnz 2y ago
A criminal conviction would represent a red line for some moderate conservatives.
friend_and_foe 2y ago
He's eligible to be on the ballot even if he were convicted of murder.

candiddevmike 2y ago

Idk, you'd think there would come a point when enough people say he's a fraud that it gets through to his base. He's now a convicted felon, representing the party of "law and order". That shouldn't end well.

newfriend 2y ago
[flagged]
- spartanatreyu 2y ago
  He signed the checks though.
- clipsy 2y ago
  Yes, people with a sliver of a brain do indeed think that.
- voisin 2y ago
  Care to elaborate for those of us who can’t fathom what you are referring to?
mc32 2y ago
Aren’t the charges misdemeanors?
- throwup238 2y ago
  All 34 charges are first degree felonies. Falsifying business records, up to four years per count, with a maximum sentence of 20 if served consecutively.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    They're class E felonies, the lowest class, with the lowest penalty. Jail time is rare. First-degree only refers to "falsifying business records in the first degree", which is otherwise a misdemeanor.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwup238 2y ago
      > Jail time is rare. The number I've heard is 10% of such cases get jail time, but that includes plea deals which are themselves >90% of cases. It's a first time conviction but 34 charges with all the antics he's pulled? Who knows what happens.
  - lamontcg 2y ago
    There's actual sentencing guidelines that can be used to calculate what punishment he's more likely to see. It won't be 20 years.
    - throwup238 2y ago
      Sentencing guidelines are a Federal thing. New York doesn't have any except those laid out in the legal code (the 4/20 maximum I mentioned earlier). I doubt he'll do any actual prison time, but those are the maximums in NY.
- mikece 2y ago
  And past the statute of limitations unless they can be presented as felonies. Stand by for things to get very weird... I just hope they don’t get “kinetic.”
  - asdvlk34gl 2y ago
    [flagged]
ungreased0675 2y ago
Have you had a conversation about the trial with a Trump supporter?
- acdha 2y ago
  I think the more interesting question is how many of the people who aren’t ardent supporters will still vote for him. There are enough Republicans who didn’t like him but still wanted their party to win to shift an election which was already tight. This goes double for anyone who is not a complete diehard on the subject of abortion and might be asking themselves why they’re carrying water for a convicted felon, especially since they already got the tax cuts.
- lamontcg 2y ago
  Trump supporters aren't going to sway the election. They were always going to vote for him and will always vote for him. The election is going to get decided at the margins by the kind of people who can still get swayed one way or the other to vote or not vote for one or the other candidate. Actually convicting him can give a solid reason for someone who would have only very reluctantly voted for him to switch to Biden or just not vote at all. Old school Reagan conservatives who find that voting for an actual convicted felon is something they just won't do. It does create an additional nice red line of illegality, which should still matter to a few folks. It will cause some ethical problems with some Republicans for voting for him, and it really doesn't take much. The 2016 election was decided by a few 10,000s of people in 3-4 different states. Where it can backfire, though, is if the conviction is overturned on appeal.
  - ungreased0675 2y ago
    Do you think Alexey Navalny‘s conviction for embezzlement caused him to lose any supporters? Probably not. It was a transparently political use of the justice system to sideline an opponent. People I’ve talked to feel the same way about Trump. I’ve asked why vote in the primary for a candidate who lost the midterms and his last election, and the sentiment is that “We can’t let them get away with it” meaning the lawfare against Trump.
krapp 2y ago
His base thinks he's a victim of a conspiracy by the "deep state" to convict him on fraudulent charges by a kangaroo court. They don't for a second believe he's guilty of anything except being too much of a radical iconoclast for "the man" to handle. >inb4 flags.
voisin 2y ago
A significant number of people who told pollsters they were planning to vote for Trump said they would change their mind if he was convicted in court. The question is whether these voters are in swing states.
rsynnott 2y ago
I mean, I assume his base know he's a fraud. He has never made all that much of a secret of it. They just don't care. Like, approximately no-one, you'd assume, is, at this point, saying: "I'm voting for Trump, the noted honest legitimate businessman... wait, he was convicted of a CRIME? Well then I'm not voting for him." His voters know he's a crook.
- shrimp_emoji 2y ago
  Exactly. He's a protest vote against the establishment. All that just makes him a better protest.

TheAlchemist 2y ago

[flagged]

rat87 2y ago
How was it politically motivated? He was guilty. If anything is politically motivated it's the Florida judge appointed by Trump delaying his secret document stealing trial past the election.
spartanatreyu 2y ago
Even assuming the case where it was indeed politically motivated to bring a case forwards in the first place, a jury of peers had to be selected by the lawyers of both sides. And that jury of his peers found him guilty, unanimously, on all counts. Thanks to that jury selection process, there's no informed way to claim that the jury was politically motivated so in the end his loss is going to hurt his chances.
- judgemerchan 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - clipsy 2y ago
    None of that happened.
    - clipsy 2y ago
      Downvotes but zero evidence to the contrary; quelle surprise.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        What is asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. So far as I saw from following the trial (not super closely, so I may have missed something), no defense witnesses were prevented from testifying if they had relevant evidence. (You don't just get to put, say, Trump's hairstylist on the stand, unless they have something to say that touches on admissible evidence.) The part that seems more in line with the claim by the green account was not about witnesses, but lines of argument. There's a claim called "advice of counsel". In this case, it would be claiming that Trump's lawyers told him to do this. Well, in a criminal trial, you don't get to just claim "my lawyer told me to do it" and that's automatically a get-out-of-jail-free card. No, the prosecution gets to examine that claim. In particular, they get to put your lawyers on the stand and ask them questions, under oath, even though those questions touch on matters that would normally be covered by attorney-client confidentiality. [That is, asserting that defense leads to loss of attorney-client confidentiality in areas covered by the claim of advise of counsel.] Trump's attorneys chose not to assert that defense. They told the judge, before the trial, that they weren't going to use that defense. Then, during the trial, they wanted to make an argument that was something like "recommendation of counsel", where it would sound to the jury like "advice of counsel", but the prosecution wouldn't get to grill the lawyers. That is, they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. The judge didn't let them do it. Trump's lawyers tried, at least twice with different wording, and the judge blocked it. Rightly so - you don't get to skirt the restrictions by trying to re-word the label.

shadowgovt 2y ago

Eligibility to be on the ballot varies from state to state. But he can of course be written in, and it will be interesting to see what happens if he becomes the People's choice via write-in on the ballot of states where a felony bars you from the ballot. I believe in general he could still be elected because there's no federal law against a felon holding the presidency and technically in States, you vote for the slate of electors (all of whom are eligible to serve), not the person they are voting for.

spartanatreyu 2y ago

A guilty verdict is likely to motivate a large section of his own base to vote for him, but will also hurt his chances to sway undecided voters to vote for him. In the end, it's going to depend on how many are motivated to vote for the democrats, and how many are motivated to vote for/against trump.

friend_and_foe 2y ago
I don't think so. I think more people are going to see this as a politically motivated kangaroo show trial than not. It takes some votes away, but it gives him others, at best I think it chsnges the calculus by roughly 0.
- tmottabr 2y ago
  nah.. people that would vote for him because of this would already be voting for him any way.. i doubt he gains much votes because of this.. but he will sure loose votes on swing states..
  - friend_and_foe 2y ago
    I think you underestimate the number of people who thought "they can't impeach a president for getting a blowjob" and actually meant it rather than using it as a tool of political expediency. Those people don't see this as justice. I think more people are principled than not.

tjpnz 2y ago

A criminal conviction would represent a red line for some moderate conservatives.

friend_and_foe 2y ago

He's eligible to be on the ballot even if he were convicted of murder.