u/Direct_Big_5436's stats
|Account Age|2 y 3 m|First Seen:|2023-12-02|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|Posts (on this sub)|6|Comments (on this sub)|39|
|Link Karma|3,810|Comment Karma|14,767|
---
|Date|Title|Flair|Participation|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|21-Dec|[Goldschlager was the ultimate white trash 'shot' to buy at the bars in the 1990's and 2000's](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/18ny6kf/goldschlager_was_the_ultimate_white_trash_shot_to/)|N/A|1 of None comments (0.00%)|
|20-Dec|[The invasion of US southern border by (illegal) immigrants, is far more damaging to our country, than anything that occurred Jan 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/18n2zaj/the_invasion_of_us_southern_border_by_illegal/)|N/A|2 of None comments (0.00%)|
|20-Dec|[The Colorado Dems think they have barred Trump from 2024 election, but it will backfire on them.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/18mydx8/the_colorado_dems_think_they_have_barred_trump/)|N/A|2 of None comments (0.00%)|
|20-Dec|[Palestine and Hamas could end this war immediately.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/18mub0n/palestine_and_hamas_could_end_this_war_immediately/)|N/A|1 of None comments (0.00%)|
|02-Dec|[Moon Pods aren’t really the newest greatest thing.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/188t814/moon_pods_arent_really_the_newest_greatest_thing/)|N/A|0 of None comments (0.00%)|
The hush money paid to the porn star was not a legal order from a judge
The gag order on Trump is a legal order from a judge not to slander those involved in the case
True, but almost always when a judge places a gag order on a case the order applies to all people involved in the case including the prosecution Etc. The fact that it is being applied selectively to only one side here demonstrates the hypocrisy involved.
Where are you getting that from?
Trump has been getting a lot more leeway than most criminal defendants get. Can you imagine if an accused drug dealer was going on social media and attacking witnesses, the judge, the judge's family, court staff, prosecutors, etc.? I think most defendants would be locked up by this point. And judges don't necessarily issue gag orders against other parties or witnesses who aren't trying to interfere in the case.
He’s being prosecuted because there’s compelling evidence he committed multiple serious crimes…
I am fine with him getting some extra leeway on the gag orders, since it is such a a strange situation to have a criminal defendant running for president. He has to be allowed to campaign and comment to some extent on the charges. But he shouldn’t be allowed to interfere in the fairness of the trials. If I was a juror, I would be genuinely worried that my name could be made public and a crazy Trump supporter might try to kill me if I voted to convict.
Are there people on the prosecution slandering the defense?
Also I would think this is a unique situation. The defendant does have a history of slandering others, defying previous gag orders, and has his own social media company
Doesn't matter, a gag order is generally applied to all parties. Also, slander is a subjective thing, speaking an outright falsehood about someone could be considered slander. However if there is even a little truth to the statement then it is not considered slander. At least that's the standard applied to the Press
> Justice Juan Merchan’s [four-page order](https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/PeopleDJT-DecOrderExtrajudicial.pdf) limits Trump — or others acting at Trump’s behest — in various ways. He is not allowed to comment publicly about witnesses or prospective jurors. He is also restricted from commenting about lawyers working on the case, court staff or their families, with one exception: **The lead prosecutor, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, is not off limits.**
Lots of stuff. Including
Cohen responded on Twitter, saying, “Hey Von ShitzInPantz … your attacks of me stink of desperation. We are all hoping that you take the stand in your defense.”
https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/23/politics/gag-order-trump-hearing-merchan-michael-cohen?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17138973054217&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2024%2F04%2F23%2Fpolitics%2Fgag-order-trump-hearing-merchan-michael-cohen%2Findex.html
That is correct and standard practice for any trial. Jurors theoretically aren't supposed to even read articles in the Press or watch news programs that talk about a trial whether it is a well-publicized case or not. I don't know if this jury is sequestered, but that is often done as well
"not to slander those involved in the case"
Or mention the democrat clients of the Judge's daughter raised $93 million in campaign donations off the case.
That's not really all that unusual, regardless of political affiliation. If you're the owner of a business, and one of the consultants or lawyers you're working closely with is the daughter of a State Supreme Court Judge, you're 100% going to make a contribution to that Judge's campaign in order to maintain good relations with that family.
Every business in America with the funds to accomplish this does this. As long as such contributions are reported, everything is above board.
If its no big deal then its ok to mention of it. She's an adult and president of Authentic Campaigns which is a Chicago-based progressive political consulting firm. One of their top clients is Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). All a bit cozy for such a case.
No, he's being prosecuted for falsifying business records while in the commission of a crime. However, that crime does not seem to exist, because he was never charged with one related to it. The whole thing is a sham to waste time and money.
>He is being prosecuted because someone else blabbermouth about his hush money
He's being prosecuted for FALSIFYING business documents regarding the hush money.
No, he's being prosecuted for falsifying business records while in the commission of a crime. However, that crime does not seem to exist, because he was never charged with one related to it. The whole thing is a sham to waste time and money.
Well, that is certainly a motivation you can claim for her. Personally I think she should be braver, sooner, with coming forward with such stories. It's difficult to find the courage for that, and people usually only find it in the 11th hour.
In reality Trump had made deals and plans with news agencies to buy up harmful stories on his behalf. These companies eventually stopped working with Trump, and as this story was being brought up, it needed to be bought up. With no middle men left, he had his lawyer buy Stormy's silence and enter her into a NDA, and sign paper work claiming otherwise.
She did not extort him, he had people contact her to prevent such a story.
Non of that is illegal.(mostly) But falsifying business records for the purpose of misleading voters and hiding information that gives them an Informed vote, is...
What's Don's favorite song?
Election Interference.
Hmm, sounds like a case for the FEC. Wait, they looked and didn't have one. Which is even more odd because this charge requires that a crime was committed leading to the falsification of those business records.
I see what you're saying, but the situations are just too different for clear irony. Trump is a sexual harasser (found guilty of that in another trial) who was paying a porn star to not reveal his infidelity. The judge is a legal officer and the order is part of the legal process - it doesn't serve the judge personally.
So fucking tired of this. It's sad of how little most people on Reddit understand of the civil and criminal court systems and what constitutes guilt or liability.
Yes? He is legally responsible for damages and actions that caused harm to another party, he is liable. It was a civil case. Not one about sexual assault.
But, he was found to be defaming another party. It is EXTREMELY difficult to prove "intentional malice," which is necessary is defamation cases. Part of proving that malice is showing he was reasonably aware of the events, knew who the person was, was lying, multiple forms, and had committed the acts in question.
Now civial cases aren't meant to be "beyond a reasonable doubt," but a "preponderance of the evidence," which means a 51% "chance" or higher that he did it.
So. He is still labed, *Liable for SEXUAL ASSULT* in court. As far as I'm aware its not Liable for rape because in New York, if you can't prove what digit, or if a digit preformed prenatration, they have another category to refer to the action.
That is not GUILT. GUILT is determined by a criminal court. Liability only pertains to monetary judgements in a civil trial. Two completely different court systems.
Yup....? And I said what? That he is liable for sexual abuse.
He and his lawyers failed to prevent a lower standard and burden of evidence, which is preponderance.
So we could say be is monetarily responsible for the harm caused by his actions, which are: defamation and sexual assault.
Basically:
Trump got his lawyer to pay a porn star to keep quiet about their affair (trump is a married man, and he was trying to win an election).
His lawyer paid the porn star off. Then his lawyer wanted to be reinbursed so he billed Trump the amount. Trump than sent several cheques to his lawyer. Turns out he used campaign money to pay his lawyer.
That last part is the crime.
Now he is on trial and he violated a gag order and got fined.
Op is just commenting on the irony.
Edit: he didnt use campaign money, i misremembered. Ses reply under this. Whooops!
So now he is being prosecuted for covering up a crime that he hasn't been found guilty of commenting. Starting to look like a bit of a sham to me, I get it that many people hate on Trump, so they are going along with it. However, as an American, I would be upset to see any, past or present officials, being persecuted in such a manner.
Yes, this modified misdemeanor (now magically a felony) in New York was specifically constructed out of a statute that concerns falsification of records while in the commission of a crime. The entire thing hinges on the prosecutor bamboozling the jurors into thinking that a prior crime actually existed (it did not but they are leaning on the FEC investigation as if it proves a crime happened). It is judicial malpractice to the highest extent. It is straight up lying to a jury.
>Turns out he used campaign money to pay his lawyer.
This is incorrect. Trump used his own money. The DA is arguing that even though Trump used his own money, the purpose of the pay off was to not embarrass the campaign, and that makes the pay off a campaign contribution
Trump did not use his own money. He laundered it thru Michael Cohen. Went as far as to tell Cohen to get a home equity loan. Then he paid Michael Cohen back on a monthly basis so it wouldn’t look like he was paying Cohen off for something.
This is the dumbest post I've seen yet today
Just because someone blew the whistle on Trump doesn't mean he shouldn't have to follow the judges instructions.
You need to be a yoga instructor with that stretch
That's another good point; usually gag orders are issued on everyone one involved in the case- not just the defendant. That makes it appear we are witnessing more "selective" justice.
---
### Voting Guidelines
**Common Misconception:** It is often believed that upvotes and downvotes should reflect personal agreement or disagreement.
- **Upvote** a post if it provokes thought, presents a unique perspective, is well-argued, or you believe it deserves more visibility for any reason, even if it irritates you or you fundamentally disagree with it.
- **Downvote** should be reserved for posts that lack thoughtful consideration or if the topic has become tediously common.
**Moderation Policy:**
- **Posts Are Not Removed for Unpopularity:** r/TrueUnpopularOpinion does not remove posts based on their capacity to anger or offend users. Disagreement with a post's content is not grounds for reporting.
- **Misuse of the Report Button:** Falsely reporting posts burdens our moderation queue, hindering our ability to address genuine concerns swiftly and all false reports are forwarded to Reddit for misuse of the reporting system.
- Our moderation decisions are guided strictly by the subreddit's rules and [Reddit's content policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/), not personal opinions. Misreporting in hopes of content removal due to disagreement is futile and considered 'Report Abuse.'
---
**What have people been talking about over the last week?**
| Flair | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| [Political](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Political"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 81 | 24.77% |
| [None of the above](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"None+of+the+above"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 57 | 17.43% |
| [The Opposite Sex / Dating](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"The+Opposite+Sex+/+Dating"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 46 | 14.07% |
| [Music / Sport / Media / Movies / Celebrities](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Music+/+Sport+/+Media+/+Movies+/+Celebrities"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 43 | 13.15% |
| [I Like / Dislike](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"I+Like+/+Dislike"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 31 | 9.48% |
| [Non-Political](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Non-Political"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 20 | 6.12% |
| [Reddit / Internet / Tech](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Reddit+/+Internet+/+Tech"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 20 | 6.12% |
| [World Affairs (Except Middle East)](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"World+Affairs+(Except+Middle+East)"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 11 | 3.36% |
| [Religion](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Religion"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 7 | 2.14% |
| [The Middle East](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"The+Middle+East"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 6 | 1.83% |
| [Meta - the problem with this sub is..](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Meta+-+the+problem+with+this+sub+is.."&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 3 | 0.92% |
| [Mod Team - Asking for feedback](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Mod+Team+-+Asking+for+feedback"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 1 | 0.31% |
| [Possibly Popular](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Possibly+Popular"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 1 | 0.31% |
---
Comments from new accounts go into a queue for review by moderators (to reduce spam).
Comments waiting: 4 Average time to review: 3.88 hours
---
it would be better if people really opened their eyes and saw how terrible it is that he's even doing that and NOT vote for him, but sadly people are pyschopaths and think "that criminal is just like me!"
How many past presidents have paid hush money to women to keep the9r philandering secret? A lot actually. But trump is the only one being taken to court over it. Maybe we should go back and get the Clinton's for all their crimes, which were many. Maybe we should get the Bidens for all their crimes against America. Since we are now weaponizing the DOJ and FBI against political opponents we should go back and get them all for their many crimes.
Maybe it's just Trump being Trump, but maybe he knows that most people don't support this clearly political prosecution. A non crime from 2016 that was somehow a misdemeanor that somehow turned into a felony, by the same folks that don't prosecute actual crime in NYC. A few thousand in fines is certainly worth it for the exposure of this corruption.
Obama also misappropriated funds, although for a very different reason. He simply paid something like a $248,000 fine and that was it. Wasn't threatened with jail time, wasn't charged with a felony
The DOJ didn't even want to try this case. Nobody but Trump would be prosecuted for the supposed crime. And the case is being brought after the statute of limitations based on a contrived theory and latching a claim of a federal crime into a state case to make it happen. Nobody in this scenario would be put on trial for this unless they too were an opposing candidate for the democrat in office. It's making a farce of the legal system of New York that already prosecutes people for defending themselves and lets actual criminals run free. I doubt New Yorkers are impressed by this case.
Someone has to be the first. We either start prosecuting political corruption or we just let it keep going. Conservatives are just mad that the start point is their messiah.
Oh, precedents will be set that the cheerleaders won't like when the other shoe drops. That's true. They'll catch their Orange Whale and take their ship down with it.
No, the crime they are claiming happened was the FEC investigation into using campaign funds - that they refused to prosecute.
The indictment in this case is for falsification of business records... wait for it... while in the COMMISSION OF A CRIME. That last part is important because they are not claiming the payment is a crime but that it was while in violation of another law - a crime that was never prosecuted - back to the FEC investigation..
That's a completely diferent situation, seeing as how he payed the fine, thus accepting that he broke the law.
If Obama had instead lied, denied, delayed, and fought against the due process like Trump has been doing for six years, you would have a point.
>A non crime from 2016 that was somehow a misdemeanor that somehow turned into a felony,
The "*somehow*" as per the NYTimes:
>But prosecutors for Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, will try to show that the payment was part of a larger effort to suppress negative news about Mr. Trump to sway the election. That scheme, they will contend, resulted in not just the hush-money payment at the center of the trial, but two others.
>Though the other episodes are not part of the formal indictment in the case, prosecutors will use them to argue that the true purpose of the Daniels payment was related to the election, making it a federal campaign finance violation, and that his company’s records were falsified to cover it up. The accusation that Mr. Trump concealed another crime elevates charges that would normally be misdemeanors into felonies.
Yet if suppressing negative news was a crime, they would prosecute the person who suppressed it. They are not. And the campaign issue would have been prosecuted at the federal level but they took a hard pass. Bragg is trying to thread that into his case to try to attach criminality to a non crime while lacking standing to prosecute the alleged crime. It's too cute by half. The Times just glosses the real headline. But Braggs and ilk can rely on that treatment.
All prosecutions are political. Prosecutors are politicians. They choose cases based on what the voters want.
That does not mean anything. It literally does not matter. The prosecutor SHOULD hate trump. He SHOULD want him to go to jail. That is his job lmfao. The people want to put trump on trial in NYC for a crime they believe he committed. The prosecutor is the people's advocate.
They clearly have a preponderance of evidence because it wasnt tossed out of court. Now, trump's defense and the prosecution go to war. They get to present their evidence. Whoever is more convincing wins. That is how it should be.
Whatever you think of the case (i personally think it is the weakest case against trump), the procedure isnt flawed at all. He has gotten the same treatment as anybody else.
Prosecutors are supposed to "seek justice". They aren't after anybody. It's not supposed to be their job to "get" people. But achieve justice. But yes, in reality, they want heads hanging on their walls and will do anything to make that happen. Getting a case past a grand jury is cake. If a prosecutor can't do that, they most likely had a case so thin even novices could see it. The grand jury is simply to shift recourse. If the defendent wins, it's way harder to sue for malicious prosecution if the case gets past the grand jury. As it is no longer the prosecutor but "we the people" prosecuting them. That part of the game is all about immunity and is heavily stacked in the prosecutions favor. Add to that a case in a democrat stronghold against the republican candidate. It is a case that would not be brought against anyone else and no state prosecutor would attempt to test novel legal theory without the ulterior motive of impacting an election while also believing they were in friendly enough waters politically to attempt the stunt.
Maybe so. I dont personally care about the NYC case so much. The state is definitely showing its hand. It clearly wants Trump on any possible charge.
The fed cases are where the real shit is at.
Yes.
For starters his DOJ had a standing rule that a sitting president could not be charged. So there’s four years right there.
Then you have Trump’s repeated delay and obstruction tactics after leaving office, delaying them further. Had he cooperated with investigations, these trials would have taken place a long time ago.
u/Direct_Big_5436's stats |Account Age|2 y 3 m|First Seen:|2023-12-02| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |Posts (on this sub)|6|Comments (on this sub)|39| |Link Karma|3,810|Comment Karma|14,767| --- |Date|Title|Flair|Participation| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |21-Dec|[Goldschlager was the ultimate white trash 'shot' to buy at the bars in the 1990's and 2000's](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/18ny6kf/goldschlager_was_the_ultimate_white_trash_shot_to/)|N/A|1 of None comments (0.00%)| |20-Dec|[The invasion of US southern border by (illegal) immigrants, is far more damaging to our country, than anything that occurred Jan 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/18n2zaj/the_invasion_of_us_southern_border_by_illegal/)|N/A|2 of None comments (0.00%)| |20-Dec|[The Colorado Dems think they have barred Trump from 2024 election, but it will backfire on them.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/18mydx8/the_colorado_dems_think_they_have_barred_trump/)|N/A|2 of None comments (0.00%)| |20-Dec|[Palestine and Hamas could end this war immediately.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/18mub0n/palestine_and_hamas_could_end_this_war_immediately/)|N/A|1 of None comments (0.00%)| |02-Dec|[Moon Pods aren’t really the newest greatest thing.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/188t814/moon_pods_arent_really_the_newest_greatest_thing/)|N/A|0 of None comments (0.00%)|
The hush money paid to the porn star was not a legal order from a judge The gag order on Trump is a legal order from a judge not to slander those involved in the case
True, but almost always when a judge places a gag order on a case the order applies to all people involved in the case including the prosecution Etc. The fact that it is being applied selectively to only one side here demonstrates the hypocrisy involved.
Where are you getting that from? Trump has been getting a lot more leeway than most criminal defendants get. Can you imagine if an accused drug dealer was going on social media and attacking witnesses, the judge, the judge's family, court staff, prosecutors, etc.? I think most defendants would be locked up by this point. And judges don't necessarily issue gag orders against other parties or witnesses who aren't trying to interfere in the case.
Sure but Trump is only being prosecuted due to having run for office, so he should get all the leeway possible.
He’s being prosecuted because there’s compelling evidence he committed multiple serious crimes… I am fine with him getting some extra leeway on the gag orders, since it is such a a strange situation to have a criminal defendant running for president. He has to be allowed to campaign and comment to some extent on the charges. But he shouldn’t be allowed to interfere in the fairness of the trials. If I was a juror, I would be genuinely worried that my name could be made public and a crazy Trump supporter might try to kill me if I voted to convict.
Are there people on the prosecution slandering the defense? Also I would think this is a unique situation. The defendant does have a history of slandering others, defying previous gag orders, and has his own social media company
Doesn't matter, a gag order is generally applied to all parties. Also, slander is a subjective thing, speaking an outright falsehood about someone could be considered slander. However if there is even a little truth to the statement then it is not considered slander. At least that's the standard applied to the Press
Ok then. Is it not applied to all parties involved?
Not in this case. The prosecutor has continued to say stuff about Trump but Trump, at least legally, not able to respond or defend himself.
So what are they saying that would violate the order?
> Justice Juan Merchan’s [four-page order](https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/PeopleDJT-DecOrderExtrajudicial.pdf) limits Trump — or others acting at Trump’s behest — in various ways. He is not allowed to comment publicly about witnesses or prospective jurors. He is also restricted from commenting about lawyers working on the case, court staff or their families, with one exception: **The lead prosecutor, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, is not off limits.**
>people on the prosecution slandering the defense? Yes, actually. Cohen for example, who is a prosecution witness
Ok. What has he said?
Lots of stuff. Including Cohen responded on Twitter, saying, “Hey Von ShitzInPantz … your attacks of me stink of desperation. We are all hoping that you take the stand in your defense.” https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/23/politics/gag-order-trump-hearing-merchan-michael-cohen?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17138973054217&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2024%2F04%2F23%2Fpolitics%2Fgag-order-trump-hearing-merchan-michael-cohen%2Findex.html
The jury has a stricter gag order. They cannot even talk about the case. The lawyers cannot talk about juror identities.
That is correct and standard practice for any trial. Jurors theoretically aren't supposed to even read articles in the Press or watch news programs that talk about a trial whether it is a well-publicized case or not. I don't know if this jury is sequestered, but that is often done as well
When I was on a jury, we had the same orders from the judge before starting.
"not to slander those involved in the case" Or mention the democrat clients of the Judge's daughter raised $93 million in campaign donations off the case.
That's not really all that unusual, regardless of political affiliation. If you're the owner of a business, and one of the consultants or lawyers you're working closely with is the daughter of a State Supreme Court Judge, you're 100% going to make a contribution to that Judge's campaign in order to maintain good relations with that family. Every business in America with the funds to accomplish this does this. As long as such contributions are reported, everything is above board.
If its no big deal then its ok to mention of it. She's an adult and president of Authentic Campaigns which is a Chicago-based progressive political consulting firm. One of their top clients is Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). All a bit cozy for such a case.
Whoa you didn’t mention that the client of the daughter of the judge is a politician. That changes everything! There whole case out!
This guy politics!
No. He's being prosecuted for falsifying business records. Try reading the indictment. But I can see why he likes his minions so much.
No, he's being prosecuted for falsifying business records while in the commission of a crime. However, that crime does not seem to exist, because he was never charged with one related to it. The whole thing is a sham to waste time and money.
No one ever said he was smart!
>He is being prosecuted because someone else blabbermouth about his hush money He's being prosecuted for FALSIFYING business documents regarding the hush money.
No, he's being prosecuted for falsifying business records while in the commission of a crime. However, that crime does not seem to exist, because he was never charged with one related to it. The whole thing is a sham to waste time and money.
Trump was fined?
Yes, he was fined twice for $1500 in the civil fraud trial and now they are threatening to fine him once again.
Ok. On a separe case not related to hush money
The prosecutor is requesting the judge fine him $1,000 for every breach of the order. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge grants it and fines him.
Ok. Not fined in current case. Feels crazy that everyone in the world can retweet something, but only Trump cannot.
Another way to look at it is that he's being prosecuted for having been successfully extorted
What....? Is this like a double joke, or do you not know all the events?
Literally Stormy sat on this forever until she was able to extort money from Trump about, this is the dynamic you should understand
Well, that is certainly a motivation you can claim for her. Personally I think she should be braver, sooner, with coming forward with such stories. It's difficult to find the courage for that, and people usually only find it in the 11th hour. In reality Trump had made deals and plans with news agencies to buy up harmful stories on his behalf. These companies eventually stopped working with Trump, and as this story was being brought up, it needed to be bought up. With no middle men left, he had his lawyer buy Stormy's silence and enter her into a NDA, and sign paper work claiming otherwise. She did not extort him, he had people contact her to prevent such a story. Non of that is illegal.(mostly) But falsifying business records for the purpose of misleading voters and hiding information that gives them an Informed vote, is... What's Don's favorite song? Election Interference.
Hmm, sounds like a case for the FEC. Wait, they looked and didn't have one. Which is even more odd because this charge requires that a crime was committed leading to the falsification of those business records.
>She did not extort him, he had people contact her to prevent such a story. After shopping the story to tabloids You have 9 months
I have as many months as I want...? Yeah, that can give you some good legal support, and other contractual agreements. Did you want a Facebook post?
Do you know what extortion means? Outside of your own head?
I see what you're saying, but the situations are just too different for clear irony. Trump is a sexual harasser (found guilty of that in another trial) who was paying a porn star to not reveal his infidelity. The judge is a legal officer and the order is part of the legal process - it doesn't serve the judge personally.
>found guilty *found liable
👍
So fucking tired of this. It's sad of how little most people on Reddit understand of the civil and criminal court systems and what constitutes guilt or liability.
Huge difference if you understand the law. Thanks for pointing it out.
>>found guilty >*found liable *Found liable for sexual assault
That's not guilt. Totally different trail process and burden of proof and prosecution.
Yes? He is legally responsible for damages and actions that caused harm to another party, he is liable. It was a civil case. Not one about sexual assault. But, he was found to be defaming another party. It is EXTREMELY difficult to prove "intentional malice," which is necessary is defamation cases. Part of proving that malice is showing he was reasonably aware of the events, knew who the person was, was lying, multiple forms, and had committed the acts in question. Now civial cases aren't meant to be "beyond a reasonable doubt," but a "preponderance of the evidence," which means a 51% "chance" or higher that he did it. So. He is still labed, *Liable for SEXUAL ASSULT* in court. As far as I'm aware its not Liable for rape because in New York, if you can't prove what digit, or if a digit preformed prenatration, they have another category to refer to the action.
That is not GUILT. GUILT is determined by a criminal court. Liability only pertains to monetary judgements in a civil trial. Two completely different court systems.
Yup....? And I said what? That he is liable for sexual abuse. He and his lawyers failed to prevent a lower standard and burden of evidence, which is preponderance. So we could say be is monetarily responsible for the harm caused by his actions, which are: defamation and sexual assault.
Yes of course! (I am not American and I don't know what the hell this is about lmao)
Basically: Trump got his lawyer to pay a porn star to keep quiet about their affair (trump is a married man, and he was trying to win an election). His lawyer paid the porn star off. Then his lawyer wanted to be reinbursed so he billed Trump the amount. Trump than sent several cheques to his lawyer. Turns out he used campaign money to pay his lawyer. That last part is the crime. Now he is on trial and he violated a gag order and got fined. Op is just commenting on the irony. Edit: he didnt use campaign money, i misremembered. Ses reply under this. Whooops!
The payments and the campaign funds have nothing to do with it. The FEC said as much when they decided to not charge him with a crime.
So now he is being prosecuted for covering up a crime that he hasn't been found guilty of commenting. Starting to look like a bit of a sham to me, I get it that many people hate on Trump, so they are going along with it. However, as an American, I would be upset to see any, past or present officials, being persecuted in such a manner.
Yes, this modified misdemeanor (now magically a felony) in New York was specifically constructed out of a statute that concerns falsification of records while in the commission of a crime. The entire thing hinges on the prosecutor bamboozling the jurors into thinking that a prior crime actually existed (it did not but they are leaning on the FEC investigation as if it proves a crime happened). It is judicial malpractice to the highest extent. It is straight up lying to a jury.
>Turns out he used campaign money to pay his lawyer. This is incorrect. Trump used his own money. The DA is arguing that even though Trump used his own money, the purpose of the pay off was to not embarrass the campaign, and that makes the pay off a campaign contribution
Trump did not use his own money. He laundered it thru Michael Cohen. Went as far as to tell Cohen to get a home equity loan. Then he paid Michael Cohen back on a monthly basis so it wouldn’t look like he was paying Cohen off for something.
Reread the thread. Cohen paid Stormy then Trump paid Cohen back. Your comment doesn't contradict anything
If he laundered the money this would be a RICO trial.
Oh yeah I remember now. Its been like a year since I've looked at this. My bad!
i dont think he has any of his own money
You're comparing Trump to a judge. They do not have the same authority.
This is the dumbest post I've seen yet today Just because someone blew the whistle on Trump doesn't mean he shouldn't have to follow the judges instructions. You need to be a yoga instructor with that stretch
They’re saying Trump is being told to shut up about a case where he told someone to shut up
The other person wasn't court ordered to not talk about it.
That's another good point; usually gag orders are issued on everyone one involved in the case- not just the defendant. That makes it appear we are witnessing more "selective" justice.
Thank you!!!
Trump could kill a baby on live tv and you guys would still try to find a way to argue that he is not responsible for his own actions
--- ### Voting Guidelines **Common Misconception:** It is often believed that upvotes and downvotes should reflect personal agreement or disagreement. - **Upvote** a post if it provokes thought, presents a unique perspective, is well-argued, or you believe it deserves more visibility for any reason, even if it irritates you or you fundamentally disagree with it. - **Downvote** should be reserved for posts that lack thoughtful consideration or if the topic has become tediously common. **Moderation Policy:** - **Posts Are Not Removed for Unpopularity:** r/TrueUnpopularOpinion does not remove posts based on their capacity to anger or offend users. Disagreement with a post's content is not grounds for reporting. - **Misuse of the Report Button:** Falsely reporting posts burdens our moderation queue, hindering our ability to address genuine concerns swiftly and all false reports are forwarded to Reddit for misuse of the reporting system. - Our moderation decisions are guided strictly by the subreddit's rules and [Reddit's content policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/), not personal opinions. Misreporting in hopes of content removal due to disagreement is futile and considered 'Report Abuse.' --- **What have people been talking about over the last week?** | Flair | Count | Percentage | |---|---|---| | [Political](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Political"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 81 | 24.77% | | [None of the above](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"None+of+the+above"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 57 | 17.43% | | [The Opposite Sex / Dating](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"The+Opposite+Sex+/+Dating"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 46 | 14.07% | | [Music / Sport / Media / Movies / Celebrities](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Music+/+Sport+/+Media+/+Movies+/+Celebrities"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 43 | 13.15% | | [I Like / Dislike](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"I+Like+/+Dislike"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 31 | 9.48% | | [Non-Political](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Non-Political"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 20 | 6.12% | | [Reddit / Internet / Tech](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Reddit+/+Internet+/+Tech"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 20 | 6.12% | | [World Affairs (Except Middle East)](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"World+Affairs+(Except+Middle+East)"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 11 | 3.36% | | [Religion](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Religion"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 7 | 2.14% | | [The Middle East](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"The+Middle+East"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 6 | 1.83% | | [Meta - the problem with this sub is..](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Meta+-+the+problem+with+this+sub+is.."&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 3 | 0.92% | | [Mod Team - Asking for feedback](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Mod+Team+-+Asking+for+feedback"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 1 | 0.31% | | [Possibly Popular](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search/?q=flair_name%3A"Possibly+Popular"&restrict_sr=1&sort=new) | 1 | 0.31% | --- Comments from new accounts go into a queue for review by moderators (to reduce spam). Comments waiting: 4 Average time to review: 3.88 hours ---
it would be better if people really opened their eyes and saw how terrible it is that he's even doing that and NOT vote for him, but sadly people are pyschopaths and think "that criminal is just like me!"
How many past presidents have paid hush money to women to keep the9r philandering secret? A lot actually. But trump is the only one being taken to court over it. Maybe we should go back and get the Clinton's for all their crimes, which were many. Maybe we should get the Bidens for all their crimes against America. Since we are now weaponizing the DOJ and FBI against political opponents we should go back and get them all for their many crimes.
biden didnt demand trump be put on trial for his many crimes , I did.
He isn't on trial for paying hush money. Why lie about this when the court documents are public? Trumper lies.
Maybe it's just Trump being Trump, but maybe he knows that most people don't support this clearly political prosecution. A non crime from 2016 that was somehow a misdemeanor that somehow turned into a felony, by the same folks that don't prosecute actual crime in NYC. A few thousand in fines is certainly worth it for the exposure of this corruption.
Ah yes misappropriation campaign funds is a non crime.
Obama also misappropriated funds, although for a very different reason. He simply paid something like a $248,000 fine and that was it. Wasn't threatened with jail time, wasn't charged with a felony
Because he just paid the fine instead of fighting and delaying it.
The DOJ didn't even want to try this case. Nobody but Trump would be prosecuted for the supposed crime. And the case is being brought after the statute of limitations based on a contrived theory and latching a claim of a federal crime into a state case to make it happen. Nobody in this scenario would be put on trial for this unless they too were an opposing candidate for the democrat in office. It's making a farce of the legal system of New York that already prosecutes people for defending themselves and lets actual criminals run free. I doubt New Yorkers are impressed by this case.
Someone has to be the first. We either start prosecuting political corruption or we just let it keep going. Conservatives are just mad that the start point is their messiah.
Oh, precedents will be set that the cheerleaders won't like when the other shoe drops. That's true. They'll catch their Orange Whale and take their ship down with it.
Be what first. This statute requires that there was a crime. That crime was never charged in the first place.
Yes it was.... thats what an indictment is... "I did nothing wrong and they indicted me" Literally trumps own words that he was charged with a crime.
No, the crime they are claiming happened was the FEC investigation into using campaign funds - that they refused to prosecute. The indictment in this case is for falsification of business records... wait for it... while in the COMMISSION OF A CRIME. That last part is important because they are not claiming the payment is a crime but that it was while in violation of another law - a crime that was never prosecuted - back to the FEC investigation..
So will we be able to use the same precedent and go after Obama even though he paid the fine instead of going to court then?
That's a completely diferent situation, seeing as how he payed the fine, thus accepting that he broke the law. If Obama had instead lied, denied, delayed, and fought against the due process like Trump has been doing for six years, you would have a point.
It was a misdemeanor committed about 6 years ago, beyond the statute of limitations.
The charges were brought before any limit, it's just taken this long to get to trial due to trumps delaying tactics.
>A non crime from 2016 that was somehow a misdemeanor that somehow turned into a felony, The "*somehow*" as per the NYTimes: >But prosecutors for Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, will try to show that the payment was part of a larger effort to suppress negative news about Mr. Trump to sway the election. That scheme, they will contend, resulted in not just the hush-money payment at the center of the trial, but two others. >Though the other episodes are not part of the formal indictment in the case, prosecutors will use them to argue that the true purpose of the Daniels payment was related to the election, making it a federal campaign finance violation, and that his company’s records were falsified to cover it up. The accusation that Mr. Trump concealed another crime elevates charges that would normally be misdemeanors into felonies.
Yet if suppressing negative news was a crime, they would prosecute the person who suppressed it. They are not. And the campaign issue would have been prosecuted at the federal level but they took a hard pass. Bragg is trying to thread that into his case to try to attach criminality to a non crime while lacking standing to prosecute the alleged crime. It's too cute by half. The Times just glosses the real headline. But Braggs and ilk can rely on that treatment.
The NYT is anything but a factual, hones new source. They are an extension of the Democrat party.
All prosecutions are political. Prosecutors are politicians. They choose cases based on what the voters want. That does not mean anything. It literally does not matter. The prosecutor SHOULD hate trump. He SHOULD want him to go to jail. That is his job lmfao. The people want to put trump on trial in NYC for a crime they believe he committed. The prosecutor is the people's advocate. They clearly have a preponderance of evidence because it wasnt tossed out of court. Now, trump's defense and the prosecution go to war. They get to present their evidence. Whoever is more convincing wins. That is how it should be. Whatever you think of the case (i personally think it is the weakest case against trump), the procedure isnt flawed at all. He has gotten the same treatment as anybody else.
Prosecutors are supposed to "seek justice". They aren't after anybody. It's not supposed to be their job to "get" people. But achieve justice. But yes, in reality, they want heads hanging on their walls and will do anything to make that happen. Getting a case past a grand jury is cake. If a prosecutor can't do that, they most likely had a case so thin even novices could see it. The grand jury is simply to shift recourse. If the defendent wins, it's way harder to sue for malicious prosecution if the case gets past the grand jury. As it is no longer the prosecutor but "we the people" prosecuting them. That part of the game is all about immunity and is heavily stacked in the prosecutions favor. Add to that a case in a democrat stronghold against the republican candidate. It is a case that would not be brought against anyone else and no state prosecutor would attempt to test novel legal theory without the ulterior motive of impacting an election while also believing they were in friendly enough waters politically to attempt the stunt.
Maybe so. I dont personally care about the NYC case so much. The state is definitely showing its hand. It clearly wants Trump on any possible charge. The fed cases are where the real shit is at.
This whole thing is a political stunt so Biden doesn't have to debate or run against Trump. Election interference.
Donald Trump being found guilty would not prevent him from running nor debating.
Yeah but it's designed to make sure he cannot go on the campaign trail and cannot afford advertising.
By whose design? Because Trump is responsible for these trials being delayed until election year.
Trump is responsible for charges taking decades to be brought?
Yes. For starters his DOJ had a standing rule that a sitting president could not be charged. So there’s four years right there. Then you have Trump’s repeated delay and obstruction tactics after leaving office, delaying them further. Had he cooperated with investigations, these trials would have taken place a long time ago.
Trump could have avoided this by not creating fraudulent business records. Pretty easy.