DONALD TRUMP INDICTED

[In2ition]

Interesting that republicans are against excessive police force when it’s them that are victims of it…they didn’t care when it was minorities in our country.

Interesting that you think that. You are speaking about all Republicans, or just the ones that fit your opinion and then applied to all?

It was an exaggeration and a generalization, but I’d be curious to know where this Brandon Williams stood when it came to the BLM movement or what his stance with George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, Breona Taylor, etc. was. If he was against excessive force then too, then I take my comment back.

Would you not agree that in general republicans are more supportive of the police and defend them in these situations?

I would agree that in general Republicans are more supportive of the police, but not supportive of excess force or them breaking the law. I would say that recently, the Dems love the jackboot actions if it's against the grandma that walks between the velvet ropes of the Capitol or the guy that carried around Nancy's lecturn, which he never actually took out of the Capitol. If it's against the pro-life dude and his family, where he was protecting his kid, the Dems are "MORE, MORE, MORE!!! Kill them!!!" with bloodlust.

Filming gay sex in the Senate?
No jail
Pulling the fire alarm in Congress?
No jail
Waving a Ukrainian flag in Congress?
No jail
Walking around peacefully with an American flag in Congress?
FBI raids & Federal prison
This is how you know our gov’t has been hijacked

I have no idea what Brandon Willams' views were of George Floyd or the BLM protests.

[Mori Chu]

Filming gay sex in the Senate?
No jail
Pulling the fire alarm in Congress?
No jail
Waving a Ukrainian flag in Congress?
No jail
Walking around peacefully with an American flag in Congress?
FBI raids & Federal prison
This is how you know our gov’t has been hijacked

I have no idea what Brandon Willams' views were of George Floyd or the BLM protests.

I would not describe participating in the 1/6 insurrection as "Walking around peacefully with an American flag in Congress." For one thing, it's trespassing and potentially endangering government officials. Second, if you look at the people who have been charged and tried for 1/6, it's been people who caused actual harm, such as bashing windows, carrying weapons, threatening or harming police officers, bringing zip lines, stealing property from the building, etc. People aren't being put in federal prison for "walking around peacefully."

If you think they are, show me. Who got put in federal prison for walking around peacefully? Show me examples.

[In2ition]

Filming gay sex in the Senate?
No jail
Pulling the fire alarm in Congress?
No jail
Waving a Ukrainian flag in Congress?
No jail
Walking around peacefully with an American flag in Congress?
FBI raids & Federal prison
This is how you know our gov’t has been hijacked

I have no idea what Brandon Willams' views were of George Floyd or the BLM protests.

I would not describe participating in the 1/6 insurrection as "Walking around peacefully with an American flag in Congress." For one thing, it's trespassing and potentially endangering government officials. Second, if you look at the people who have been charged and tried for 1/6, it's been people who caused actual harm, such as bashing windows, carrying weapons, threatening or harming police officers, bringing zip lines, stealing property from the building, etc. People aren't being put in federal prison for "walking around peacefully."

If you think they are, show me. Who got put in federal prison for walking around peacefully? Show me examples.

I just told you. A grandmother got charged and did nothing but walk around between the velvet ropes. There was another that never went into the Capitol and was assisting people and police that were injured. Another lady that was pushed(she didn't want to go into the tunnel, but couldn't help it) into the tunnel and badly beaten by police and she never even raised a hand to them. Another that wasn't even in Washington that day. Jacob Chansley from Phoenix, the Buffalo Head guy, who was escorted around the Capitol by the Capitol Police, was charged. Brandon Straka was also arrested and never went into the Capitol or even close to it. A journalist was also arrested for filming it. The fact is that there are numerous stories of people peacefully protesting that are sent to the DC gulag and put into solitary confinement, being treated with excess punishment for misdemeanors.

[Split T]

Interesting that republicans are against excessive police force when it’s them that are victims of it…they didn’t care when it was minorities in our country.

Interesting that you think that. You are speaking about all Republicans, or just the ones that fit your opinion and then applied to all?

It was an exaggeration and a generalization, but I’d be curious to know where this Brandon Williams stood when it came to the BLM movement or what his stance with George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, Breona Taylor, etc. was. If he was against excessive force then too, then I take my comment back.

Would you not agree that in general republicans are more supportive of the police and defend them in these situations?

I would agree that in general Republicans are more supportive of the police, but not supportive of excess force or them breaking the law. I would say that recently, the Dems love the jackboot actions if it's against the grandma that walks between the velvet ropes of the Capitol or the guy that carried around Nancy's lecturn, which he never actually took out of the Capitol. If it's against the pro-life dude and his family, where he was protecting his kid, the Dems are "MORE, MORE, MORE!!! Kill them!!!" with bloodlust.

Filming gay sex in the Senate?
No jail
Pulling the fire alarm in Congress?
No jail
Waving a Ukrainian flag in Congress?
No jail
Walking around peacefully with an American flag in Congress?
FBI raids & Federal prison
This is how you know our gov’t has been hijacked

I have no idea what Brandon Willams' views were of George Floyd or the BLM protests.

Would you not consider the George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, and Breonna Taylor cases a situation of excessive force?

[In2ition]

Interesting that republicans are against excessive police force when it’s them that are victims of it…they didn’t care when it was minorities in our country.

Interesting that you think that. You are speaking about all Republicans, or just the ones that fit your opinion and then applied to all?

It was an exaggeration and a generalization, but I’d be curious to know where this Brandon Williams stood when it came to the BLM movement or what his stance with George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, Breona Taylor, etc. was. If he was against excessive force then too, then I take my comment back.

Would you not agree that in general republicans are more supportive of the police and defend them in these situations?

I would agree that in general Republicans are more supportive of the police, but not supportive of excess force or them breaking the law. I would say that recently, the Dems love the jackboot actions if it's against the grandma that walks between the velvet ropes of the Capitol or the guy that carried around Nancy's lecturn, which he never actually took out of the Capitol. If it's against the pro-life dude and his family, where he was protecting his kid, the Dems are "MORE, MORE, MORE!!! Kill them!!!" with bloodlust.

Filming gay sex in the Senate?
No jail
Pulling the fire alarm in Congress?
No jail
Waving a Ukrainian flag in Congress?
No jail
Walking around peacefully with an American flag in Congress?
FBI raids & Federal prison
This is how you know our gov’t has been hijacked

I have no idea what Brandon Willams' views were of George Floyd or the BLM protests.

Would you not consider the George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, and Breonna Taylor cases a situation of excessive force?

Yes, I would. Trayvon wasn't due to Police action though, but still excessive force. All were tragic and none of them should have happened.

[Split T]

Interesting that you think that. You are speaking about all Republicans, or just the ones that fit your opinion and then applied to all?

It was an exaggeration and a generalization, but I’d be curious to know where this Brandon Williams stood when it came to the BLM movement or what his stance with George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, Breona Taylor, etc. was. If he was against excessive force then too, then I take my comment back.

Would you not agree that in general republicans are more supportive of the police and defend them in these situations?

I would agree that in general Republicans are more supportive of the police, but not supportive of excess force or them breaking the law. I would say that recently, the Dems love the jackboot actions if it's against the grandma that walks between the velvet ropes of the Capitol or the guy that carried around Nancy's lecturn, which he never actually took out of the Capitol. If it's against the pro-life dude and his family, where he was protecting his kid, the Dems are "MORE, MORE, MORE!!! Kill them!!!" with bloodlust.

Filming gay sex in the Senate?
No jail
Pulling the fire alarm in Congress?
No jail
Waving a Ukrainian flag in Congress?
No jail
Walking around peacefully with an American flag in Congress?
FBI raids & Federal prison
This is how you know our gov’t has been hijacked

I have no idea what Brandon Willams' views were of George Floyd or the BLM protests.

Would you not consider the George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, and Breonna Taylor cases a situation of excessive force?

Yes, I would. Trayvon wasn't due to Police action though, but still excessive force. All were tragic and none of them should have happened.

You’re right, Trayvon wasn’t due to police action…my perception though was that republicans(generalizing here) were more supportive of the police(or George Zimmerman) in these situations. I am glad to hear your opinion on the matter though. I thought they were all tragic as well.

[Mori Chu]

I would not describe participating in the 1/6 insurrection as "Walking around peacefully with an American flag in Congress." For one thing, it's trespassing and potentially endangering government officials. Second, if you look at the people who have been charged and tried for 1/6, it's been people who caused actual harm, such as bashing windows, carrying weapons, threatening or harming police officers, bringing zip lines, stealing property from the building, etc. People aren't being put in federal prison for "walking around peacefully."

If you think they are, show me. Who got put in federal prison for walking around peacefully? Show me examples.

I just told you. A grandmother got charged and did nothing but walk around between the velvet ropes. There was another that never went into the Capitol and was assisting people and police that were injured. Another lady that was pushed(she didn't want to go into the tunnel, but couldn't help it) into the tunnel and badly beaten by police and she never even raised a hand to them. Another that wasn't even in Washington that day. Jacob Chansley from Phoenix, the Buffalo Head guy, who was escorted around the Capitol by the Capitol Police, was charged. Brandon Straka was also arrested and never went into the Capitol or even close to it. A journalist was also arrested for filming it. The fact is that there are numerous stories of people peacefully protesting that are sent to the DC gulag and put into solitary confinement, being treated with excess punishment for misdemeanors.

I'm not going to take your word for it on any of these. If these people really did get charged and convicted of crimes for the acts you describe, please show me some link to verify whether that is true. My guess is that all of these examples are BS or are exaggerated and not described accurately.

[In2ition]

I would not describe participating in the 1/6 insurrection as "Walking around peacefully with an American flag in Congress." For one thing, it's trespassing and potentially endangering government officials. Second, if you look at the people who have been charged and tried for 1/6, it's been people who caused actual harm, such as bashing windows, carrying weapons, threatening or harming police officers, bringing zip lines, stealing property from the building, etc. People aren't being put in federal prison for "walking around peacefully."

If you think they are, show me. Who got put in federal prison for walking around peacefully? Show me examples.

I just told you. A grandmother got charged and did nothing but walk around between the velvet ropes. There was another that never went into the Capitol and was assisting people and police that were injured. Another lady that was pushed(she didn't want to go into the tunnel, but couldn't help it) into the tunnel and badly beaten by police and she never even raised a hand to them. Another that wasn't even in Washington that day. Jacob Chansley from Phoenix, the Buffalo Head guy, who was escorted around the Capitol by the Capitol Police, was charged. Brandon Straka was also arrested and never went into the Capitol or even close to it. A journalist was also arrested for filming it. The fact is that there are numerous stories of people peacefully protesting that are sent to the DC gulag and put into solitary confinement, being treated with excess punishment for misdemeanors.

I'm not going to take your word for it on any of these. If these people really did get charged and convicted of crimes for the acts you describe, please show me some link to verify whether that is true. My guess is that all of these examples are BS or are exaggerated and not described accurately.

Don't be disingenius here. If you really want to know, I'll provide the stories with links, but I think you're not serious.

[In2ition]

As Trump trial hurtles towards verdict, are Americans paying attention?

16 hours ago John Sudworth, Senior North America correspondent, in New York
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv22mryvleko?

It had all the promise of an only-in-America blockbuster trial, brimming with salacious detail and a former president in the dock.

In fact, it’s hard to imagine a bigger courtroom drama, tailor-made for the media, than one that stars Donald Trump, once the world’s most powerful figure and someone vying to be so again, forced to sit through allegations of an awkward sexual encounter with a porn actress.

A political and legal thriller in which a man - not known for his humility - has had to listen, often with eyes tightly shut, as everything from depictions of his satin pyjamas and comparisons to a "Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain" have entered the court record.

And yet, despite the weeks of testimony, the millions of pages of documents, and the ranks of live TV cameras assembled outside to record the history-making spectacle of the first criminal trial of a former US leader, the American public appears strangely detached.

In a recent YouGov/Yahoo News poll, just 16% of respondents said they’d been following the trial “very closely”, with even those who said they were taking a mild interest in proceedings coming in at only a third of those surveyed.

More Americans said the trial made them feel "bored" or "angry" than interested. Other polls taken during the trial to gauge attention being paid have found similar results.

As the jury’s verdict now approaches, for those pundits and pollsters once anticipating that a national moment might be unfolding in lower Manhattan’s criminal courtroom number 1530, there’s now instead a feeling that the outcome – whichever way it goes – may be less of a fulmination and more of a fizzle.

[Mori Chu]

If Donald Trump is convicted of a felony, people will pay attention. And it sure looks like there's a good chance he will be.

[Cap]

If Donald Trump is convicted of a felony, people will pay attention. And it sure looks like there's a good chance he will be.

Nobody’s going to be influenced by it. Trump supporters will see it as a sign of persecution and vote for him. Trump opponents will see it as validation of their choice to vote against him. And as for swing voters… they are not paying attention.

[In2ition]

LAWFARE 2.0: Acting Justice Merchan will reportedly instruct jurors that they can individually pick any one of three 'predicate' crimes during their deliberations. Shockingly, they need not ALL agree on which crime they believe Trump committed to find him guilty. This unprecedented move undermines the very foundation of our justice system, highlighting how New York Democrats are using their control of the judiciary to pursue political vendettas. The three predicate crimes they include are:

1. Tax Fraud: Allegations suggest that Trump or his organization may have misrepresented payments made to Michael Cohen. It's critical to note that Trump did not take a deduction or write-off for these payments. For Trump to be found guilty of tax fraud, all three of the following elements must be true:

- False Statement: Trump must have made a false representation on a tax return or other tax-related document. In this case, no deduction was claimed.
- Intent: The false statement must have been made with the intent to evade taxes. Importantly, no taxes were evaded.
- Materiality: The false statement must be material, meaning it could influence the decision of the tax authority. Here, no decision was influenced.

2. State Election Law Violations: The prosecution argues that by failing to itemize payments made to Michael Cohen in 2017, Trump was attempting to influence the 2016 election. For Trump to be found guilty of violating state election law, each of the following three elements must be true:

- Intent to Influence an Election: There must be clear evidence that Trump intended to influence the 2016 election.
- Unlawful Expenditure or Contribution: The payments in question must constitute an unlawful expenditure or contribution.
- Material Effect: Trump's actions must have had a material effect on the election, meaning they were significant enough to influence the outcome.

Trump lost New York by more than 23% in the 2016 election. Despite the publicity surrounding the payment, Trump is projected to lose the state in 2024 by only 10%. For this charge to hold, the payment to Michael Cohen would need to have had a 'material effect' on the election, which it clearly did not.

3. Federal Election Law Violations: The prosecution argues that Trump should have used campaign funds to pay Michael Cohen for his services related to Stormy Daniels and reported those payments to the FEC. Notably, the jury is unaware that the FEC has already reviewed and dismissed these allegations. For Trump to be found guilty of violating federal election law, all three of the following elements must be true:

- Contribution: Trump must have made or accepted a contribution.
- Exceeding Limits: The contribution must exceed legal limits set by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Importantly, under FECA, there is no limit to the contributions a candidate can make to his own campaign, rendering this charge invalid on this basis alone.
- Intent: The contribution must be made with the intent to influence the election.

The FEC's prior dismissal of these allegations underscores the lack of merit in this case.

Once they pick one or more of these 'predicate' crimes, the jury will then need to determine if Trump falsified business records in the first degree under New York Penal Law § 175.10. For Trump to be found guilty, each of the following three elements must be true:

- False Entry: Trump must have instructed his accountant not to itemize payments made to Michael Cohen. However, the Trump Organization's accountant testified that Trump had no involvement in the matter and that expenses were booked in the company's ledger without Trump's input.
- Intent to Defraud: The unitemized expense entries must have been made with the intent to defraud. There is no allegation that the accountant intended to defraud anyone by failing to itemize the payments to Michael Cohen, nor is there evidence that Trump was aware of the entries' completeness or had any fraudulent intent.
- Concealment of Another Crime: The false entries must have been intended to conceal other crimes. There is no evidence that Trump intended to commit tax fraud, especially since he did not attempt to deduct the payments from his taxes. Similarly, there is no indication that Trump intended to violate state election law, as he did not campaign in New York, recognizing it as a lost cause. Finally, Trump did not intend to break federal campaign finance laws, believing he could not use campaign money to pay for an NDA, and knowing he could spend an unlimited amount of his own money on his campaign.

At the end of the day, this case brings Lawfare to a whole new level. There is no crime here, much less a predicate crime. Despite this, it is clear that Acting Justice Merchan is not concerned about being reversed; his focus seems to be on obtaining a guilty verdict. Will he succeed? Here are my predictions:

- Dismissal (1% Chance): The chances of the case being dismissed are extremely slim. The political pressure and the determination to proceed with these charges make dismissal highly unlikely.

- Acquittal (9% Chance): Although an acquittal is possible, it is also unlikely given the charged atmosphere and the intense scrutiny surrounding this case.

- Conviction (40% Chance): There is a significant chance of conviction, as the judge's strategy appears to be focused on securing a guilty verdict regardless of the weak evidence.

- Hung Jury (50% Chance): The most likely outcome is a hung jury. The politically charged nature of the case and the divisive opinions surrounding it make it probable that the jury will be unable to reach a unanimous decision.

Acting Justice Merchan had initially announced plans to release the jury instructions prior to the weekend. However, at the last minute, he decided not to release them. It is presumed that he was concerned about potential critiques from legal experts, such as
@JonathanTurley
and
@AlanDersh
, which might influence the jury's perceptions and decisions.

Finally, President Biden has announced plans to give a national address from the Oval Office shortly after the verdict. This move raises questions about his intentions and the message he aims to convey. Is he attempting to shape public perception, address concerns about the legal process, or perhaps use the moment to push a broader political agenda?

Note: I'm not a lawyer. Just a guy on Twitter wearing a Stormtrooper helmet.


This is a break from the Constitution, but it's not surprising that these Dem Activist Judges would violate the Constitution.

[Mori Chu]

Why do we care what "some guy in a storm trooper helmet" who is not a lawyer thinks about the case?

[In2ition]

You don't have to care about it. I just thought he made good points about the case. I was looking for someone with an Airplane blowup co-pilot for an Avatar to make good points about it, but I failed to find any.

[Nodack]

I am hoping for conviction. I am tired of him and Maga attacking our country.

[In2ition]

He's not "attacking the country". He's attacking the corrupt judges. You take it as he's "attacking the country", which is a little odd that you for some reason think that they represent the country we live in.

[Nodack]

Lying about stealing the election is attacking the country. Attacking ALL US institutions is attacking the country. His mob attacking the Capital is attacking the country. Praising all our enemies while simultaneously attacking your own leaders is attacking the country. Calling people who served their country losers and suckers is attacking the country. The fake electors scheme, the Ukrainian extortion scheme, the US postal service scheme, the find me enough votes scheme. Attacking all the judges, prosecutors, jury and the entire system is attacking the country to me. Trump has made an entire cult around attacking our country.

[Mori Chu]

Trump seems very agitated about the impending closing arguments, jury deliberation, and verdict.

[In2ition]

I don't think the prosecution showed in any way that Trump was guilty in any of their accusations, but I'm not confident that the jury didn't decide which way they were going to rule before being picked to the jury. Even if it goes to appeal immediately, I'm pretty sure that Merchan is going to make an excuse to send Trump to jail as soon as the verdict is read. Being said, I don't think this means anything.



*P.S. I changed the post with a more acceptable poster, but same video.

[Mori Chu]

What else does Behizy think about the case?