Convicted felon Donald Trump on Trial (Found guilty on 34 felony counts. 54 criminal count still in the air)

[Renegade7]

Trump takes cold blooded advantage of "what makes sense" to get what he wants...

 

Bernie Madoff was 71 when he started his prison sentence and died at 82 while still in prison.

 

Trump would take kindness for weakness and already has a plan to show no one the same amount of mercy being considered for him right now.

 

What makes sense?

[tshile]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Prisons* will rent tablets to inmates for exorbitant prices.  

 

https://jpay.com/PMusic.aspx

 

 

*Actually third-party corporations who contract with the prisons to gouge the inmates for all kinds of services and then send kickbacks to the prisons. 

I think it was NPR - but I recently listened to a podcast deep dive on this and it’s very insidious. 

 

Either the third party will get bought or the service will change names, or whatever, and the inmates lose everything they bought. Movies. Music. Whatever. If they want it back they have to pay for it again. 
 

it’s a really ****ed up situation (along with the other ****ed up situations about our industrial prison system)

[Renegade7]

Double Down - shouldn't Trump actively campaigning to be POTUS be a factor in saying he's too old to go to jail?

 

It's not like he's pulling a Weinstien coming to court with a walker to show how frail he is.  Dude bragging about what great shape he in, let him go pump iron in the yard then.

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Bernie Madoff was 71 when he started his prison sentence and died at 82 while still in prison

He had direct victims - namely old people that lost their retirement. 
 

he was also put up as a poster boy for the government to claim they care and were doing something (as if he’s one of the few people committing financial crimes)

 

if you recall that came as an aftermath to the financial crisis. 
 

don’t really recall others responsible for billions going to jail. I do recall learning what a golden parachute was. 

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

I think it was NPR - but I recently listened to a podcast deep dive on this and it’s very insidious. 

 

Either the third party will get bought or the service will change names, or whatever, and the inmates lose everything they bought. Movies. Music. Whatever. If they want it back they have to pay for it again. 
 

it’s a really ****ed up situation (along with the other ****ed up situations about our industrial prison system)

 

The point is, Donald Trump's tiny hands are too small for a tablet, he needs to be able to rent an iPhone while in the slammer. 

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

He had direct victims - namely old people that lost their retirement. 
 

he was also put up as a poster boy for the government to claim they care and were doing something (as if he’s one of the few people committing financial crimes)

 

if you recall that came as an aftermath to the financial crisis. 
 

don’t really recall others responsible for billions going to jail. I do recall learning what a golden parachute was. 

 

Fair points...

 

Trump jus got convicted of 3 times as felonies as Madoff.

 

Maybe I need help understanding what a felony is if someone can get that many and potentially serve no jail time.

 

We keep trying to treat this man with kids gloves when it's pretty clear he's gonna put on murder gloves if elected.  And this was jus part of getting elected, he has more pending for what he did after.

 

So why is this sentencing being looked at in a vacuum and not taking that into account?  Should sentencing be moved to allow for more potential convictions to take place?

[tshile]

29 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

This comment seems weird to me lol...because:

 

- you found out about pleaseblitz' lawyer comrades by, you know, reading about it online

- you don't know if pleaseblitz' paraphrasing of what his acquaintances said is accurate, or if those same people were to read his posts would say "Hold on. I didn't say that, exactly..."

- you seem to think the people on TV don't "actually practice the law day-to-day"

- you seem to think that those same people on TV don't give rational and reasonable legal opinions and only give hot takes (I posted a lengthy video on this thread by lawyers not too long ago that is anything but a "hot take")

- you seem to think people repeating what lawyers have said in articles somehow means those same people are proclaiming they're now "endowed with experience and expertise" instead of seeing it as them simply passing on legal info that helps explain their stance

so, a couple of things. 
 

I have a lot of respect for pleaseblitz. Like all the posters that are worthy of real respect - enough time and attention will teach you to understand when they’re speaking with authority (authority they’ve earned by posting about a topic they’re clearly well educated or experienced in) and when they’re just ranting on the internet. 
 

when petermp talks about things where research is the core - i listen to him. He’s not always right. I’m not gonna cite him in my own work. But taking what he says to be well informed via research is a good bet to make. He’s an academic. It’s the thing he knows best and he’s willing to share his knowledge with us. 

 

When TEG talks about local government and anything tangential to roads/highways/infrastructure/etc - again I listen. Again years of paying attention has revealed he had expertise in that. 
 

There are others. There’s a few topics Buzz is an expert on too.
 

 The point is when PB takes his time to explain or opine on something - even when he says he’s just saying what people he believes to be trustworthy on the subject, either friends or colleagues - I pay attention. I don’t need to know him to know that. He doesn’t make it a habit of providing his legal analysis very often. Which… is normal for experts. You won’t see me posting in the computer help thread. So when he does, I pay attention. 
 

Not gonna build my own legal case around it and present it to a judge - but what he has to say is generally worth 1000x whatever other posters say given they googled how to be a lawyer or something. 
 

I also work with lawyers, which if you paid attention you’d also know, so I am informed by lawyers in ways beyond what PB decides to share. It just so happens the lawyers I know with tons of criminal law experience (some of it high stakes) are saying the same things. 
 

I know from personal experience how phony and fraudulent anyone on tv with “expert” in their title is. 
 

I think it’s generally not difficult to figure out when someone has expertise in something. I don’t have to know you. There’s a way they conduct themselves and a way they speak about the topic. I think it’s an important skill to hone - identifying some flags that suggest someone may or may not indeed have some expertise on any given subject. 

Edited June 3 by tshile

[PleaseBlitz]

For clarification, the lawyers I discussed it with seemed to agree that Trump would not go to prison for the felonies he was convicted of.  There was no agreement on his chances of getting a few days (or more) for his egregious and repeated violations of his gag order. 

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

For clarification, the lawyers I discussed it with seemed to agree that Trump would not go to prison for the felonies he was convicted of.  There was no agreement on his chances of getting a few days (or more) for his egregious and repeated violations of his gag order. 

this clarification is something I’ve heard repeated quite a few times (and you said the first time I believe)

 

my opinion that I have to a maga loving friend was he won’t get jail time for the convictions but is gonna see between 5-15 days for his antics. Which I oh so hope happens because it’s going to drive the maga crowd ****ing nuts 😂 

 

And honestly Trump comes across to me as someone that doesn’t require a lot of days for prison to break him. Any day he spends in a cell is a win just for that 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

19 minutes ago, tshile said:

so, a couple of things. 
 

I have a lot of respect for pleaseblitz. Like all the posters that are worthy of real respect - enough time and attention will teach you to understand when they’re speaking with authority (authority they’ve earned by posting about a topic they’re clearly well educated or experienced in) and when they’re just ranting on the internet. 
 

when petermp talks about things where research is the core - i listen to him. He’s not always right. I’m not gonna cite him in my own work. But taking what he says to be well informed via research is a good bet to make. He’s an academic. It’s the thing he knows best and he’s willing to share his knowledge with us. 

 

When TEG talks about local government and anything tangential to roads/highways/infrastructure/etc - again I listen. Again years of paying attention has revealed he had expertise in that. 
 

There are others. There’s a few topics Buzz is an expert on too.
 

 The point is when PB takes his time to explain or opine on something - even when he says he’s just saying what people he believes to be trustworthy on the subject, either friends or colleagues - I pay attention. I don’t need to know him to know that. He doesn’t make it a habit of providing his legal analysis very often. Which… is normal for experts. You won’t see me posting in the computer help thread. So when he does, I pay attention. 
 

Not gonna build my own legal case around it and present it to a judge - but what he has to say is generally worth 1000x whatever other posters say given they googled how to be a lawyer or something. 
 

I also work with lawyers, which if you paid attention you’d also know, so I am informed by lawyers in ways beyond what PB decides to share. 
 

I know from personal experience how phony and fraudulent anyone on tv with “expert” in their title is. 
 

I think it’s generally not difficult to figure out when someone has expertise in something. I don’t have to know you. There’s a way they conduct themselves and a way they speak about the topic. I think it’s an important skill to hone - identifying some flags that suggest someone may or may not indeed have some expertise on any given subject. 

 

A few things here, too lol:

 

- I wasn't referencing PB's bonafides, I was referencing how it is you came to know them was really no different than how anyone else comes to know 90% of what they talk about on message boards and social media: you saw it on the internet. I didn't assume you didn't know anything nor did I assume PB didn't know anything...I just found it ironic to describe how others came across some (or even most) of their knowledge as somehow being bad when they did it but just fine when you did the same here lol...I personally don't try and guess if someone has a lot of knowledge and experience in any subject unless what they say is so flat-out, obviously wrong that they must not know as much as they think they do...either that, or they're being disingenuous.

 

- I've had people I highly respect for their intelligence and knowledge abso-effin-lutely paraphrase me incorrectly to the hilt lol...even on this very site where my words are easily and readily available for everyone to read for themselves. Hell, I've mistakenly paraphrased people on here before. It happens. I personally abhor when someone claims I said something when my point was presented by another in a way that doesn't really reflect what I said or how I felt. I think we even had Phillip Daniels post on this site one time when he said an article paraphrased him incorrectly about something he said about a teammate...and the article had his words in quotes lol. So, yeah, it happens regardless of who we are. I tend to be a sticker about letting it dictate too much in my conclusions, my interpretation might be different from theirs, and the person we are both paraphrasing may hear both our interpretations and say "Um, no." So I don't put too much weight on something being paraphrased, no matter who is doing it. Instead I'll pay attention to the rest of the person's comment or argument or stance and go from there.

 

 

Edited June 3 by Califan007 The Constipated

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

really no different than how anyone else comes to know 90% of what they talk about on message boards and social media: you saw it on the internet

I think this is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting for you. 
 

it doesn’t matter the medium you consume information. It matters how you assign authority. And given what I see and hear walking through life, most people suck at picking what authority to appeal to and how to do it. 
 

no, I don’t consider his legal analysis to be on the level of any random thing I read on the internet. 
 

and I consider “read on the internet” to be a short-hand phrase for “consumed and believed something without doing any critical thinking or due diligence on the matter”. I believe that’s how it’s general used. Not literally that I consumed it via the internet - which is how almost everyone is consuming everything these days. 
 

 

For instance - we have a poster that has taken to posting legal analysis on seemingly everything related to SCOTUS and Trump. I happen to understand they don’t actually have any legal expertise or experience, they’re just regurgitating what they read on the internet. I would not take those opinions to mean anything as they are “just things I see on the internet”. I do not put PB’s rare “here’s what things look like to me(or people around him)” posts on that same level. But that’s just me. 

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

People need to be @ing people who they are name checking. 

[tshile]

I did it just to irritate you 

[Bang]

58 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Trump takes cold blooded advantage of "what makes sense" to get what he wants...

 

Bernie Madoff was 71 when he started his prison sentence and died at 82 while still in prison.

 

Trump would take kindness for weakness and already has a plan to show no one the same amount of mercy being considered for him right now.

 

What makes sense?

This also makes sense.

 

~Bang

[Spaceman Spiff]

While we're here, the only things I pay attention to @TradeTheBeal!are Mazda's and metal cruises.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

I think this is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting for you. 
 

it doesn’t matter the medium you consume information. It matters how you assign authority.

 

"I'm gonna go ahead and put some trust in people  that actually practice the law day-to-day, and don’t make money by going in front of a camera with hot takes; certainly over people who think googling things a couple times endowed them with experience and expertise."

 

Considering the posts immediately before yours on this subject were made by...um...that one dude (can't remember his name lol) talking about "analysts on tv" (ie; people who make money by going in front of a camera with hot takes) and by me quoting articles and him quoting articles back ("people who think googling things a couple times endowed them with experience and expertise"), I don't think it's a stretch to believe you weren't making a general comment, but were talking about posts made specifically on this thread. And if so, you definitely didn't assign any "critical thinking or due diligence" to either of us.

 

Now, I could be wrong there, in which case it's another example of paraphrasing gone wrong lol...but if so, you could have made your same point just as strongly without inserting the tv-hot-takes-think-googling-makes-them-an-expert rhetoric. Because while I agree that there are too many online who think they can quickly Google some stats to make an argument--or worse, have a deeply flawed blog they like reading to which they assign too much validity--I personally only do that when I know where they got the information from and can give a reasoned explanation as to why their online source is flawed beyond recognition..what it leaves out, what it gets wrong, how it has been debunked, etc, etc, yadda yadda. Because in reality I don't know at all how much knowledge or what type of valid research they've done to back up their stance without asking them first. So I prefer retorting to the person's logic or lack of same.

 

Because there is just a gargantuan amount of incredible info, facts, stats, science, analysis, etc online. I can't be dismissive of someone's argument based on that person learning whatever they've learned from googling **** lol...I learned a ton about the term "Redskin" and just a ton about the science behind transgenderism by researching online. And I mean a ton. Both were rabbit holes that were easy to get lost in and take up an inordinate number of my browser bookmarks lol...

 

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

While we're here, the only things I pay attention to @TradeTheBeal!are Mazda's and metal cruises.

 

So you completely dismiss my "lol" dissertations, then?...**** you!

[Larry]

52 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

For clarification, the lawyers I discussed it with seemed to agree that Trump would not go to prison for the felonies he was convicted of.  There was no agreement on his chances of getting a few days (or more) for his egregious and repeated violations of his gag order. 

 

That's what I said maybe a week ago. 

 

In this case, I'd be cool with a "jail free" sentence. 

 

And a week in jail for contempt. With the explanation that the judge didn't order it at the time, because he didn't want to prejudice the jury. 

[Fergasun]

I pulled this from NYS law:

Quote

The court, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and to the history and character of  the  defendant, is of the popinion that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary but that it would be unduly harsh to impose  an  indeterminate or  determinate sentence,  the  court may impose a definite sentence of imprisonment and fix a term of one year or less.

So what is the history and character of Trump and circumstances of the crime? Committing a crime to become POTUS.  What is his character?  Do the Trump Organization crimes come into play (probably not).  How about his Federal indictments?  Impeached twice.  What about January 6?  

 

My understanding is that the state can bring any and all evidence. 

 

I would like to see the judge push him on if he is sorry and then throw whatever he feels the book is against Trump.  I know it's not gonna be direct jail (probably).  He could give him jail post appeals.  

[EmirOfShmo]

Pretty good debate with Jon Stewart & former CO Rep. Ken Buck (he's the dude who recently resigned from Congress). Actually, the entire show was good...

 

 

Edited June 4 by EmirOfShmo

[ixcuincle]

 

[hail2skins]

At the end of that Daily Show segment Stewart asked Buck how the fever breaks, and Buck opined another crisis like 9/11 would bring us together.

 

In 2024, does anyone actually believe that?

[Larry]

4 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

At the end of that Daily Show segment Stewart asked Buck how the fever breaks, and Buck opined another crisis like 9/11 would bring us together.

 

Like Jan 6th did?  

 

Or Covid?  

 

I mean, after Jan 6thg, a lot of Republicans made a big show of condemning the events.  

 

Lasted, IIR, about 2 days.  Before their polling said that what happened wouldn't hurt them politically.  

 

[samy316]

48 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

At the end of that Daily Show segment Stewart asked Buck how the fever breaks, and Buck opined another crisis like 9/11 would bring us together.

 

In 2024, does anyone actually believe that?

 

No.  Nothing will bring this country together again.  I doubt if an event like 9/11 happens today, the country will band together and be patriotic like it was shortly after.  America is WAY too divided, and the country is way more partisan than we were 20 years ago.  I don't see things getting better anytime soon (or ever).  This country is too fractured and too partisan to ever come together.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 hours ago, EmirOfShmo said:

Pretty good debate with Jon Stewart & former CO Rep. Ken Buck (he's the dude who recently resigned from Congress). Actually, the entire show was good...

 

 

 

 

Great interview. My favorite parts:

 

Stewart: “Couldn’t you look at this (Trump being found guilty) as actually not a shameful precedent, but an unbelievably positive step in sending a message that the low level of corruption—that seems to be the center of our political life—is unacceptable?”

 

Buck: “You can indict a ham sandwich.”

Stewart: “OK, but you can’t convict a ham sandwich. Because at some point, 12 New Yorkers would go ‘That’s just a ham sandwich’…”

 

Buck: "You're putting me in the unenviable position of defending Donald Trump..."

Stewart: "I'm putting you in the position of defending the legal process."

 

Buck: “I think we went from Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather, to entertainment. I think the problem right now is everyone gets their news sources in silos, and they just keep getting reinforced with certain ideas.”

 

 

1 hour ago, hail2skins said:

At the end of that Daily Show segment Stewart asked Buck how the fever breaks, and Buck opined another crisis like 9/11 would bring us together.

 

In 2024, does anyone actually believe that?

 

Actually, he didn't quite say that. He said Americans come together (or do their best, something like that) in a crisis, then used 911 as an example. Then he said he thinks what will "break the fever" would be a unifying leader, someone out there with great leadership and ethics who can help guide the country through the mounting crisis occurring, and said someone like John F. Kennedy. He didn't quite say we needed another 911-type crisis.

Edited June 4 by Califan007 The Constipated

[Larry]

13 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

Actually, he didn't quite say that. He said Americans come together (or do their best, something like that) in a crisis, then used 911 as an example. Then he said he thinks what will "break the fever" would be a unifying leader, someone out there with great leadership and ethics who can help guide the country through the mounting crisis occurring, and said someone like John F. Kennedy. He didn't quite say we needed another 911-type crisis.

 

We had one.  Barack Obama.  

 

He was the wrong Party.  The wrong color.  Had a funny middle name.  Was born in Hawaii.  And his father was Muslim.