He’s already lost, this trial is only to determine how much it will cost him. I think it’s more that he’s realized how bad his attorneys are, and that he’s going to lose everything.
And to think, all he had to do was not run for president of the United States (among many other things) and this probably never would have happened to him.
I mean, I’ve never run for president of the United States, it’s a very easy thing to not do.
Seriously. Had he not ran, or dropped out early, he could have probably started his own fringe news channel and lived a relatively unchanged, trouble free life and probably made some money doing it.
I personally think he expected to lose and wasn’t expecting the Russians to barely tip the scales to eek out an electoral college victory.
I can imagine a world where Trumps publicity presidential run starts spinning out and Jared/Ivanka start pulling strings to make it happen. Jared walked away with untold billions and just walks away unscathed. It’s disgusting, especially when you think of how the GOP will stop at nothing to bury Hunter.
They are desperate to show the Dems are just as bad.
But he wants to look cool in front of his friends.
Respectfully, I hope you are wrong.
If not running was all it took not to be prosecuted then, to me, that says this is indeed a political prosecution and not about the rule of law.
I think they meant not run the first time? As in: he doesn’t run, and therefore doesn’t get elected, so he stays away from the spotlight and can, relatively, quietly live his life with his foot in his mouth at every turn, but nobody cares because he’s a D list celebrity.
And of course, not being the president, he has no access to half of the shit he’s dealing with federally. I feel like the state stuff in NY was a pretty long time coming, but the federal stuff could’ve been avoided had he lost or not ran in 2016.
I don’t even know what a world like that would look like, but I’m sure it would’ve been better than the four years we had of him.
Edit: Mobile, misspelled some things due to autocorrect.
I think they mean for the first presidency. Had he not run for president and won via the electoral college, he never would’ve been in a position to commit a lot of the crimes he’s in trouble for.
Oh no, I agree with you. I was just making a joke. From what I understand he never really wanted to run for president in the first place, and was surprised he won. Honestly his business might have continued as it was, fraud and everything, if he had never done that plus all the other crazy stuff he did.
I’ve very glad he’s getting what’s coming to him. I mean he brought this on himself.
as president he had access to much higher level criming, which is why he is now in the trouble he is in.
Oh no, I agree with you. I was just making a joke. From what I understand he never really wanted to run for president in the first place, and was surprised he won. Honestly his business might have continued as it was, fraud and everything, if he had never done that plus all the other crazy stuff he did.
I’ve very glad he’s getting what’s coming to him. I mean he brought this on himself.
he’s realized how bad his attorneys are
Maybe he should have paid or listened to the first dozen sets of lawyers he went through.
He’s almost certainly going to appeal whatever verdict he gets, claiming that he had ineffective legal council and that the judge was biased against him. Because the only effective reason you can appeal is if you don’t believe your trial was fair. So he’s basically stacking the “this trial was unfair” deck in his favor.
I hate to be that guy, but you can’t appeal on ineffective assistance of counsel in a civil proceeding.
deleted by creator
I don’t know, I just feel like correcting people on the internet often comes off as being pedantic even if that isn’t the intention. That is why I included the disclaimer I suppose. Thanks for the kind words though, I appreciate it.
Whoa, whoa…I was told this was a Reddit replacement and this is way too kind, humble, accepting, and level headed.
This is downright peaceful.
Since when has something being legal or not ever stopped Trump from trying it?
I’m not sure what you mean exactly in this context? Are you saying he will try to appeal on those grounds anyway? If that is what you are saying then it doesn’t work like that because the appeals court will simply throw out the appeal for lack of standing I believe.
That’s exactly what I’m expecting would happen. Trump submits paperwork trying to appeal, it gets rejected for not being valid grounds to appeal, and he cries persecution in the media.
Oh, well in that case then I guess agree with you. Both because that is his M.O. and also because his legal team in this specific case is especially incompetent.
“My trial was unfair!”
“On what grounds?”
“I made it unfair for myself!”
💀
RBG was too ______ to retire as well.
This oversight was first reported over two weeks ago, yet he hasn’t mentioned it or taken action in any way. Wonder if that would have an effect on such an appeal.
I don’t think it would because it is unlikely this case would have been granted a jury trial anyway due to New York law. There are specific requirements for requesting a civil jury trial in New York, and all the legal analysis I have seen has suggested they would not have met that bar.
Jury Trials are onerous on the public and the judicial system, but are fundamentally necessary as well as guaranteed in criminal proceedings. However, for civil matters that is the exception rather than the rule.
Interesting, I hadn’t heard the possibility that he may have been denied a jury until now. Maybe that’s why he’s been quiet about it (until now of course.)
It wasn’t denied, his attorney’s never requested one in the first place. It is unlikely it would have been granted even if they had due to the aforementioned reasons. However, that has not stopped Trump from saying he was “denied” a jury trial which is just patently false.
Yes, I know he failed to request one, I broke the story here on Lemmy over two weeks ago
https://reddthat.com/comment/3313060
I meant that it never occurred to me that if they had requested one properly, that he might be denied and have to have a bench trial anyway.
I see, my bad. Was just confused by the verbiage.
Even if he did appeal, would that delay execution of the resulting court order?
he’s going to lose everything.
He’s going to send out a new round of “save our country” money-raising emails and every one of his cult members are basically going to bail his ass out of this again.
Yeah but surely there must be diminishing returns, or at least there’s a somewhat finite pool to draw from. Like as case after case goes bad why would anyone keep giving him money?
You would think. But it keeps happening. Maybe this will be the final straw?
Excellent.
Not that I disagree, but how the hell is a “legal expert” any prerequisite for judging what a person’s behavior says about them? That’s more of psychologist’s job, being a legal expert means as much as “the builder of the best sandcastle in the universe” in this case.
Not that it’s very relevant to Trump, the only qualification required to analyze him is “being at least 5 year old of average intelligence”. I just hate shitty titles, is all.
My guess is they get an understanding for how “guilty” vs “innocent” people act/react, but that would definitely just be anecdotal at best.
I understood that reference
Wtf is a dinosaurietogsubåt?
It’s a dinosaur-train submarine.
Yes, I got that, but what is that?
“Just because I’m guilty of all these crimes, it feels like this person wants to prosecute me for them - it’s not fair!”
Citation: Narcissism
No no no no, I think his strategy of directly antagonizing law enforcement is going to work and he should be encouraged to do so… /s
Let’s everyone take a moment and collectively laugh at the sad little coward that’s downvoting all the comments for making fun of their beloved hero.
No rebuttals. No arguments in defense- just butt-hurt worthless downvotes.
Lost? Well he already lost last week. This is the penalty phase.
The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was granted for the main fraud charge. There remain other fraud charges to be litigated.
Doesn’t matter. It’s the quarter of a billion dollars that has Trump’s attention.
Oh sure, and it’s $250M at minimum, even just for that one charge (is there a different word for that in a civil case?) which he was found liable for in summary judgment. There are still more, each with their own set of consequences.
“It seems to me Donald Trump’s strategy here is essentially damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead,”
That has ALWAYS been Trump’s strategy for everything.
Traitor orange is going down!
He’ll be fined. And that money won’t be real to him. Don’t get excited.
“He’ll be fine”? Tell that to his super morbidly obese heart trying to pump blood when fryer grease is clogging everything up and his bitch ass stress level is spiking cuz his grift is running it’s course. Anyway.
No, he’ll be fineD. Like, monetarily.
Ah I see, my fault. Yeah, the grift is real. His followers are a little behind in the evolutionary timeline.
Why get legal experts to weight in on this? That assumes he is listening to his counsel which we all know he is not. Need a phycologist to weight in on this instead to make any sense of it. I don’t think his delusional narcissistic ass has the capacity to realize he is going to lose, but I’m not a legal expert or psychologist.
Frontotemporal dementia
What are the chances of jail time? White collar crime like this effects way more people than petty theft, but I’m thinking at most it’ll be a hefty fine. Again, like on most topics, I’m pretty ignorant of the reality of the situation.
It’s a civil case, which means no jail time should he be convicted. It will just be a fine.
That said, it’s possible the verbal attacks against those involved lead to…something. I wouldn’t hold your breath though.
It is also possible to plead the fifth as a defendant in a civil trial, however, a jury (or the judge, in this case) can make “adverse inferences” from that in civil court.
In a criminal case, a defendant who takes the stand has waived their fifth amendment rights. That’s why you don’t hear defendants on the stand in court saying “Fifth, fifth, fifth.” A defendant retains their fifth amendment rights in a criminal trial by refusing to take the stand - as is their right.
What I’m not sure of is whether that also applies in a civil case. Unlike in a criminal trial, in civil court, the plaintiff can call the defendant to the stand. I don’t know if that obliges the defendant to take the stand or not. Also, in civil court, a defendant can only plead the fifth if answering the question could implicate them in criminal matters. The civil matter at hand, all by itself, cannot be “fifthed out of;” if a defendant is on the stand, they must answer questions in relation to the case, again, so long as the answers could not implicate them in crimes.
We know that Trump is on the plaintiff’s witness list. If plaintiff calls Trump to the stand in his civil case, is he obliged to go on the stand? I think he is, because fifth amendment protections do not extend to civil litigation. Then he could plead the fifth if the answer to the specific question posed implicates him in a crime. If that happens, there would surely be a motion from plaintiff’s attorneys for the court to rule on whether fifth amendment protections extend to that question.
But this is a bench trial, where the judge is going to decide the outcome of the case. It would be completely reasonable for the defense to want a different judge to make that fifth amendment call; having the current bench learn about the potential answers to the question of fifth amendment protection would obviously tend to influence the very same bench who is responsible for deciding the case.
I have no idea what’s going to come of all this.
Unfortunately, this case, in a legal sense, is against his corporation, not him.
It’s ruling will likely result in the dissolution of said corporation and the barring of Trump doing business in NYC, just like a similar case did with his charities, from which he stole.
That’s the annoying thing with how corporations are handled in the US.
What Trump did in the charity and this case is criminal fraud. But because it was all nicely wrapped in the form of some corporate entity, it’s a civil case. That shit is fucked up.
At this point I think I’d be okay with house arrest. Just confining his remaining years on Earth to Mar-a-lago would do wonders for the health of the world.
Gotta cut off his internet access, too.
Give him fake social media with AI that trolls and insults him.
AI is too expensive. Just a bot that says “beep boop, you’re a loser”.
He may also lose properties, to be sold to pay for the fines.
He’s having a complete meltdown right now.
This is the best popcorn I’ve ever had.
Don’t eat it all too quickly. I have a feeling this is going to get better and better.
Even if he loses, he will suffer no significant consequences, nor will the lawless movement that supports him.
He could lose all of these cases tomorrow, and it still wouldn’t mean a thing. He could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone, and there still would be no significant consequences.
The GOP are a lawless terrorist movement, but everyone else wants to “take the high road.”
That still remains to be seen.
He’s losing in a big way with these NY cases. There’s a strong chance that he’ll never be able to do business in NY again, which means a lot of work restructuring his businesses. It’s a pretty big hit and will take a lot of time and money to resolve.
The election cases will be held next year, and will determine whether or not he sees jail time. I still have high hopes that we’ll see him behind bars in the next couple of years. These cases just take time because of the ramifications if the DOJ gets them wrong.
Between this and his lawyers “forgetting” to request a jury trial, this is gonna suck for him.
