Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

Cooked Crack

By Cooked Crack
in The Tailgate

 Share

Will Trump be convicted in any of his cases?  

31 members have voted

  1. 1. Will Trump be convicted in any of his cases?

    • Yes. He's going 4 for 4. (including Georgia)
      6
    • He's going to lose 3
      5
    • Two for sure
      8
    • He's only going to get convicted in one
      1
    • No. He's going to skate
      11

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, TheDoyler23 said:

CNN has audio up Trump discussing documents and showing one to some staff member of his club. It’s so hilariously damning. 
 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/politics/trump-classified-documents-audio/index.html

 


I keep observing that we're talking about someone who:  

 

Decided that as President, the honor of his first official visit with a foreign dignitary, would be with the Russian ambassador. 
 

Decided that the visit would be barred to all US press. And to State department translators. (Who are required to produce a full record of every word said.)

 

But the Russian ambassador was allowed to bring his own "press" and "translators". Who were allowed to bring their own electronics into the Oval Office. 
 

And who, while boasting to the Russian ambassador about all the great classified stuff he has now, gave the Russians information that was reportedly sufficient to identify an Israeli agent within ISIL.  (I assume, the most important classified information he could think of.)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

Cannon schedules July 14 hearing on how classified materials will be handled in Trump documents case

 

The first hearing for Donald Trump and the special counsel’s office before Judge Aileen Cannon in the Mar-a-Lago documents case will be in Fort Pierce, Florida, on July 14.

 

The hearing is set to discuss pretrial issues around classification, with Cannon on Monday granting a request from special counsel Jack Smith that she hold the hearing under the Classified Information Procedures Act.

 

Trump and his co-defendant Walt Nauta are not required to be present at the hearing, according to the new court order, though it is the first time their defense teams are set to appear before Cannon.

 

Additionally, Cannon ordered on Monday that the defendants respond by July 6 to the special counsel’s request that the trial be delayed until December.

 

The scheduling orders from Cannon came shortly after she denied a request from Smith’s team to file under seal a list of witnesses with whom Trump cannot speak about the classified documents case.

 

While Cannon did not raise any problems with the restriction, her new order seemed to question why filing the list on the docket was necessary in the first place. The judge also said that prosecutors had not provided adequate reasoning for why the list, if filed in court, should be kept completely under seal.

 

“The Government’s Motion does not explain why filing the list with the Court is necessary; it does not offer a particularized basis to justify sealing the list from public view; it does not explain why partial sealing, redaction, or means other than sealing are unavailable or unsatisfactory; and it does not specify the duration of any proposed seal,” Cannon said in her order.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FootballZombie

FootballZombie

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

What is the difference between this tape the CNN has now everyone is talking about and what we heard a couple weeks go?

 

No diff, I think its the same event being talked about.

 

Previously they were talking about the existence of the tape and how damming it was.

This is CNN actually getting the tape and putting out the audio for joe schmo to listen to.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy

AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy

Posted
Posted (edited)

Not sure the tape could be any worse for him. What an idiot. 
 

I just don’t see how he avoids prison time. Maybe the judge gives him probation/house arrest, I just don’t see it. Not many ways to interpret that tape and I’m sure they have plenty more evidence to add on. 

Edited by AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dan T.

Dan T.

Posted
Posted

Here’s a side issue with the tape.  Trump holds it up as proof that it was Gen. Miley who wanted to attack Iran. That’s likely bull****. I bet a dollar that military planners drew up that contingency at the direction of Orange Foolius. 

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EmirOfShmo

EmirOfShmo

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, tshile said:

I’m concerned tapes leaking to media creates the appearance of an integrity issue

 

 

Maybe if these were wiretapped recordings I would agree. They aren't. They're recordings writers made with TFG for a Meadows book they were writing. 

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gbear

gbear

Posted
Posted

84 witnesses seems like a lot.  Are some of them held in reserve to counter a potential defense strategy/show the lies?

 

I tend to think of each of them as potential walls held in reserve should Trump break out of corridor the prosecution is constructing for him.  They can be used to steer the trial path back towards the goal of conviction.  However, if the trial proceeds without break away attempts, the rest of the 84 witnesses will not have to be called.  

 

Am I wrong in that assumption about the high number of witnesses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LadySkinsFan

LadySkinsFan

Posted
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, gbear said:

84 witnesses seems like a lot.  Are some of them held in reserve to counter a potential defense strategy/show the lies?

 

I tend to think of each of them as potential walls held in reserve should Trump break out of corridor the prosecution is constructing for him.  They can be used to steer the trial path back towards the goal of conviction.  However, if the trial proceeds without break away attempts, the rest of the 84 witnesses will not have to be called.  

 

Am I wrong in that assumption about the high number of witnesses?

 

That number of witnesses means that Jack Smith has run down and obtained corroborating information directly from people who attended meetings, participated in phone/Zoom calls, etc. with TFG. Since Trump never shuts up and likes to brag, I'm sure this effort was massive. This is why Fed conviction rate is so high. Either defendants realize that the evidence against them is air tight and they make a deal, or they lose in a trial. With the FBI not pursuing TFG for a long time, it also shows why Jack Smith has moved at lightning speed once he was assigned.

 

 

Edited by LadySkinsFan
  • Like 2
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

Part of me hopes that the high # means we are getting the most epic of piling on we've ever seen. 

 

 

 

I think it really means they want to have an airtight case if they're planning to convict a former president.  They want it to be clear that they know everything that happened and that there is zero doubt he was obstructing, not just retaining documents.

  • Like 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EmirOfShmo

EmirOfShmo

Posted
Posted

Not sure why this isn't behind the WaPo paywall...

 

Justice Dept. asking about 2020 fraud claims as well as fake electors

 

The Justice Department’s investigation of efforts by Donald Trump and his advisers to overturn the 2020 election results is barreling forward on multiple tracks, according to people familiar with the matter, with prosecutors focused on ads and fundraising pitches claiming election fraud as well as plans for “fake electors” that would swing the election to the incumbent president.

Each track poses potential legal peril for those under scrutiny, but also raises tricky questions about where the line should be drawn between political activity, legal advocacy and criminal conspiracy.

 

...

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger — whom Trump called after the election, talking about finding enough votes to overcome Biden’s margin of victory in the state — is scheduled to be interviewed by investigators with Smith’s office on Wednesday in Atlanta, a spokesperson for Raffensperger’s office said.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/06/26/justice-dept-asks-about-election-fraud-claims-well-fake-electors/

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted
On 6/12/2023 at 7:33 PM, China said:

One of the reasons people are concerned with Aileen Cannon, is that if she remains the judge, she will be responsible for sentencing, and if she goes out of her way to show deference to Trump, as she did with her previous (erroneous) ruling, she might let him off with a slap on the wrist if and when he's convicted.

 

For reference, here is what an application of the sentencing guidelines to Trump's crimes would and should look like:

 

How Much Prison Time Does Former President Trump Face? Applying the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

 

Now that the public has seen the current list of federal charges against former President Donald Trump, there is a long road ahead. If the defendant is ultimately convicted, that road will lead to sentencing. The Espionage Act charges the defendant faces carry a maximum prison sentence of ten years.  The Tampering (and related Conspiracy) and Concealment charges each carry a maximum prison sentence of twenty years.  The Scheme to Conceal and False Statements  charges each carry a maximum prison sentence of 5 years.  Of course, in any criminal case, numerous factors affect the sentence, and focusing on the statutory maximums can be misleading. Federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3553, directs courts to impose a sentence based on a list of considerations. The U.S. Sentencing Commission issues Sentencing Guidelines to assist courts and promote consistent application of criminal law. Sentencing trends in similar cases can provide reference points, but only if similar cases exist. This quick note gives an idea of how a sentence would be calculated, with the caveat that issues such as sentencing on multiple counts of conviction, related conduct, and new factual developments could arise.

General Framework


Section 3553 directs courts to examine “the nature and circumstances of the offense” and the defendant’s characteristics. It also requires courts to consider the purposes of criminal sentences, specifically the need to:

 

Impose a sentence consistent with the seriousness of the offense

  • Promote respect for the law 
  • Provide just punishment
  • Deter future criminal conduct
  • Protect the public from the defendant’s potential future criminal conduct
  • Provide rehabilitation in the form of training, medical care, and other treatment
  • Avoid undue disparities among similarly situated defendants who engaged in similar conduct

The statute also mandates application of the Sentencing Guidelines. The Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory, but the Supreme Court has held that a sentencing judge “must give serious consideration to the extent of any departure from the Guidelines” and must explain her reasoning if she imposes an unusually lenient or harsh sentence.

 

The Guidelines themselves set out general principles, then list specific base offense levels for specific crimes. They provide adjustments based on factors related to victims, a defendant’s role in the offense, any obstruction or related conduct, the treatment of multiple counts, and a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility. Each of these factors adds or subtracts a specified number of points. The total value can then be compared to a chart that provides sentencing ranges based on a defendant’s criminal history.

 

Application to the Special Counsel’s Charges

 

Click on the link to see the analysis

 

Regardless, I expect he will get a lenient sentence no matter who the judge is.

 

More on the potential sentence:

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dan T.

Dan T.

Posted
Posted
On 6/26/2023 at 11:39 PM, Dan T. said:

Trump holds it up as proof that it was Gen. Miley who wanted to attack Iran. That’s likely bull****. I bet a dollar that military planners drew up that contingency at the direction of Orange Foolius. 

 

 

Bingo. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...