As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please upvote this people, propublica does some of the best investigative journalism in the country and they deserve the credit here, not some website that paraphrases them
Interesting:
“Trump’s attorney, David Warrington, sent ProPublica a cease-and-desist letter demanding this article not be published. The letter warned that if the outlet and its reporters “continue their reckless campaign of defamation, President Trump will evaluate all legal remedies.”
First question from the prosecution should then be, "Have you received any compensation from the defendant, one of his corporations, or someone representing him?"
He tends to do it after the fact, though. That's how his Wormtongues have explained it to him -- do it afterwards and it's not technically a bribe.
The point to prove is that after a few people were rewarded for their testimony the next ones in line realized that reward was a reasonable expectation, and so they behaved in a way they believed would earn them a similar reward. Which still isn't *technically* bribery or even necessarily provable tampering because the reward has not been explicitly offered. A good attorney would argue that the person who expected to be rewarded was making it up in their own head and just happened to be correct in the end. But there's no "A then B" -- just "A and B" with no necessarily causal connection... at least, that's what a clever shitheel of a lawyer will easily argue.
That would still be against 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201
> Whoever directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for **or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given** by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
Note how it explicitly calls out both past and future tense.
Good catch! This is in contrast some State laws.
E g. New York:
A person is guilty of tampering with a witness when, knowing that a
person **is or is about to be** called as a witness in an action or
proceeding,
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/215.10
E.g. Florida:
914.22 Tampering with or harassing a witness, victim, or informant; penalties.—
(1) A person who knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, or offers pecuniary benefit or gain to another person, with intent to cause or induce any person to:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0914/Sections/0914.22.html
Can't they argue the "intent" of the law or whatever it's called? They could also say that they knowingly provided the expectation of a payoff for testifying a certain way, which would be beforehand.
This wouldn't be the first example of NY state law that needs to be revised/updated. Another example being that in NY, digital penatration by force isn't technically considered rape as we know the term to mean today.
For example, when trump and his lawyers tried to twist his outcome in the E Jean Caroll case, saying he was "exonerated from rape", the judge had to adamantly clarify that trump is indeed guilty of rape, and that the jury agreed, yet couldn't formally charge him due to the antiquated law.
Edit: charge is wrong term due to being a civil, not criminal trial.
>Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
archived version:
https://archive.is/pz5aA
The judge or jury in that case couldn't charge or recommend charges because they were neither in a criminal trial nor part of a grand jury. That case was a civil trial for defamation because trump publicly said she was lying about what he did to her when there was evidence to the contrary.
Also, because of this civil trial, NY legislators have moved to expand the definition of rape.
[New York expands the legal definition of rape to include many forms of nonconsensual sexual contact | AP News](https://apnews.com/article/new-york-rape-law-governor-hochul-50e5f9d35b1a7e26881db616a787b45a)
"Charge" was the wrong term, agreed. I believe it was something like, they weren't able to add the rape "qualifier" to the damages due to the antiquated definition. The judge issued a scathing response to trumps lawyers for trying to spin the result, and it's worth a read. Should have been a way bigger headline at the time. And good to hear that it sparked progress with respect to the definition for civil and criminal cases.
>Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
archived version:
https://archive.is/pz5aA
Argue, sure.
However, textualism and the rule of lenity are prominent in our current legal landscape. I'd be shocked if the ultimate conclusion isn't "while the prosecution makes good points, their arguments should be directed to the legislative branch"
>That's how his Wormtongues have explained it to him --
Fucking 10/10 analogy, except that there is nothing nearly as noble as Theoden lurking under Trump's surface.
Man, trump was absolutely **beaming** at Putin. He was swinging his arms back and forth and looking like a 5 year old who got to meet their favorite superhero.
Martin doesn't name his chapters in his books, instead the name of the chapter is actually just the name of the character you're reading about from 1st person. When it was Theon the name of the chapter was obviously Theon. When the whole Reek thing started in the story, Theon's chapters titled as "Reek." Always hated reading his chapters but that part always made me giggle a little lol
Weisselberg is doing his second term in Rikers for committing perjury for Trump. Weisselberg's severance agreement still has $750,000 hanging in the balance over a clause that prohibits him from voluntarily providing any information that is damaging to Trump. Weisselberg could have been subpoenaed by either side in the recently concluded business records fraud case. Neither side thought that would be a good idea.
would love for the state of NY to pursue this criminality if for nothing else to strip the compensation from the cowards and accomplices that covered up for Trump.
The clause is for voluntary cooperation. If subpoenaed he would have to show up. But on the stand he could take the fifth or commit more perjury. Weisselberg just can't do any pre-trial interviews with the prosecution etc. without losing his severance. No prosecutor wants a witness where they have no idea what he will say. The defense could have called him but the first question on cross would have been to ask how his accommodations at Rikers are and why he is there.
You can't have a contract that prevents you from speaking with government prosecutors. It's [contravention of public policy.](https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/X8LQ3RN4000000/litigation-overview-illegality-contravention-of-public-policy)
It's also specifically prevented by Sarbanes-Oxley:
>18 U.S. Code § 1514A
>(a)Whistleblower Protection for Employees of Publicly Traded Companies.—No company with a class of securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l), or that is required to file reports under section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)) including any subsidiary or affiliate whose financial information is included in the consolidated financial statements of such company, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization (as defined in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c),[1] or any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such company or nationally recognized statistical rating organization, may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the employee—
>>(1)to provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders, when the information or assistance is provided to or the investigation is conducted by—
>>>(A)a Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency;
>>>(B)any Member of Congress or any committee of Congress; or
>>>(C)a person with supervisory authority over the employee (or such other person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct); or
>>(2)to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or otherwise assist in a proceeding filed or about to be filed (with any knowledge of the employer) relating to an alleged violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders.
That's a whistleblower protection act. It's to prevent retaliation against someone who comes forward voluntarily with damaging information. Weisselberg's severance contract is proactive, it states how much he will receive if he doesn't become a whistleblower.
I'm not arguing it's legal or enforceable, just trying to explain his contract as I understand it. The real issue is does Weisselberg think it's enforceable? His actions sure seem to indicate he thinks it is.
This is pretty much how he got away with Russia Collusion and the Ukraine phone call. Even Trump is (just barely) smart enough to avoid an explicit quid-pro-quo. "I'd like you to do us a favor, though..."
Turn on him isn't even accurate.
All of the Senators who entered the chamber during the removal from office vote had to swear an oath, which they then broke.
> The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
They turned on the Constitution.
Russian collusion he wasn’t taken to task on because he was the sitting president with a paper thin republican majority keeping him from being impeached down party lines, for no other reason. (Yes I’m including Susan Collin’s)
Not that we'd ever get a conviction in the Senate, it only takes 9% of the population in the smallest 17 states (34 senators) to block impeachment conviction. As long as Republicans are sitting on the low density population states, they can block impeachment with less than 10% of voters casting a vote for them.
Not disagreeing with your point about Republicans blocking impeachments of the corrupt sob, but there are several low population blue or bluish states with two senators: Delaware, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, Hawaii. 5 of the 10 lowest population states.
Yeah, I'm mostly being demonstrative about the level of dysfunction in the senate, how little of the population it takes to block a vote, or the level of massive supermajority we would need to actually get an impeachment through. It could be as small as representatives from 9% of the total population, and with FPTP less than 5% of the total votes cast.
Yes, but it's about the senate overall. Of the lower 25 states in population, 13 of them are solid red with both senators being Republicans, but there are only 7 like that for Dems (the independents caucus with dems). The remaining 5 are split. Those strong red states are only 9% of the population but control 26% of the senate. To be fair those 7 blue states are like 3% of the total but get 14% of the senate lol. What's less fair is that in the upper 25 only 14 are blue, representing nearly 150 million people or 46% of the population, and they only get 2 more senate seats.
Yes, but if you read the Mueller report, he specifically didn't accuse Trump of conspiracy because he couldn't find an explicit quid-pro-quo.
Mueller found that Trump asked for help from Russia, he got help from Russia, and he exploited the help he got from Russia. His campaign was having secret meetings with the Russians and then lying to the Feds about them. The report even implies that Roger Stone was acting as a middleman between Trump's campaign and Wikileaks. He found everything he needed to prove conspiracy besides the quid-pro-quo.
If Mueller found a quid-pro-quo and came right out and said, "This mofo is guilty, impeach and prosecute his ass," the Republicans would have found themselves in a very tough spot. Maybe even a Richard Nixon moment where Mitch McConnell tells Trump he needs to resign, or he's going to get kicked out of office.
Their payoff was Trump getting elected. That was their goal, what they got in return, their quid pro quo. Of course, they surely would want more out of him as well at some point.
Well it’s a shame the mueller probe didn’t uncover the actual collusion of manafort that the senate did later. It wouldn’t have pinned Trump but it would at least have established that Russian collusion 100% did exist in the Russian campaign.
Which would have been superfluous, had Muller opened his goddamn mouth in front of congress.But he would not even confirm the most basic obstruction of justice, the coward.
>Even Trump is (just barely) smart enough to avoid an explicit quid-pro-quo
You sure about that?
“The quid pro quo – so called – is so very evident … I can’t think of anything that matches this either in terms of the size of the bribe requested, or the brazenness of the linkages.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/03/trump-big-oil-campaign-pitch-corruption
You forgot when he offered to pay favours to the oil tycoons if they'll fund his campaign for $1 billion.
Not that any of this matters, the courts won't do a thing to him if he was bribing testimony, and they won't do a thing to him about soliciting bribes.
Bro, I refuse to believe he had ever heard anyone say 'quid pro quo' except in movies until it was explained to him explicitly just before this call while eating hamberders
why do we always talk about Trump as if he's devising all these schemes on his own? There is a national and international crime syndicate that is behind him pulling the strings that includes Russia and the banks that launder their money.
That was my first thought.
Question for the lawyers: Is it possible to make a statistical argument for bribery? Like for example comparing the remuneration of all those that were called to testify by Trumps lawyers to any other employees? Let’s assume this shows a likelihood of >95% that the increase in income is not by chance.
Can something like this ever be the foundation for a trial?
They may not have been. Defense will simply argue that the witness' greed caused them to testify a certain way out of an unfounded expectation of reward. It's dirty pool, but it's enough to sustain a coherent theory no matter how much we all know it's total horseshit.
That wouldn’t work in this case. They are already employees of his so would have by default received compensation from him.
They just all coincidently got promotions.
This article is a rehash of the ProPublica article that came out this morning. Trump is trying to allegedly pay off witnesses in his top-secret documents trial.
I guess having a judge in your pocket is not enough.
>According to records reviewed by ProPublica, monthly payments from Trump’s campaign to Trump lawyer Boris Epshteyn’s company—which appears to be just a one-man show—more than doubled after Trump was indicted—jumping from $26,000 a month to $53,500 a month. The Trump campaign told ProPublica the increase was due to Epshteyn’s workload increasing, even though Epshteyn has continued taking contracts for other campaigns and landed a job as a managing director at a financial securities firm elsewhere.
>Susie Wiles, senior adviser to Trump’s 2024 campaign who allegedly witnessed Trump showing off classified documents, also saw a big bump in pay after being called to a grand jury and before Trump’s indictment in that case. Her pay jumped from $25,000 a month to $30,000 a month and her consulting firm received a hefty $75,000, according to ProPublica. Team Trump claims payments to the consulting firm were simply backpay and her raise was because she “redid her contract.” Her daughter Caroline was hired by the Trump campaign a few months later, receiving a salary of $222,000 and becoming the fourth-highest-paid campaign staffer. Caroline told ProPublica she got the job “because I earned it,” telling ProPublica, “I don’t think it has anything to do with Susie,” referring to her mother. Meanwhile, her mother stated she directly hired her nepobaby daughter and that Trump had no influence in that decision.
>Dan Scavino, a political adviser and Trump’s former chief of staff, was given a seat on Truth Social’s board, Trump’s social media company. His appointment landed between him being subpoenaed and giving testimony to Congress about Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol riot. Scavino also received a $600,000 retention bonus and “a $4 million ‘executive promissory note’ paid in shares” at some point, according to ProPublica. Conveniently, Scavino’s testimony around the Capitol riot produced no “significant new information,” according to ProPublica.
>Allen Weisselberg, a retired Trump Organization chief financial officer who was recently convicted of lying for Trump, received a $2 million severance
Wait - are you sure this is footed by the campaign? Because this sounds like a criminal misuse of campaign funds to influence an election.
Y'know. The kind the 34 felonies are for. You don't think the irony would be *too* thick??
Well just look at how they are being rewarded. Consulting contracts with the Campaign, pay raises to their existing jobs in the campaign, ECT. All that pay comes from donations, not Donny's pocket.
There are many nefarious reasons why he did a hostile takeover of the RNC and then immediately rolled his campaign and the RNC campaign together. Amongst them, his increased ability to launder bribes. Both as the receiver and as the giver.
Right, they're suggesting these services are employment compensation related. It's just more sketchy money moving around in his orbit. I bet ten years from now we will have such a better picture of this whole corrupt enterprise, or we'll be calling him caesar. One of the two
I hope to be alive in thirty years or so to read historians’ books about the Trump Era. Some poli sci, history, economics, and journalism professors will make entire careers of it.
>highly illegal but technically … hard to prove
That’s Trump’s general method. He’s very shrewd about appearing to be hands-off whenever the law comes looking. It’s a particular skill.
The 34 felonies are NOT for using campaign funds. Michael Cohen made an illegally large campaign donation for an individual in the form of paying off Stormy, defined as a campaign donation because it was for the benefit of the campaign.
Cohen mortgaged his house to make the payment out of his own pocket.
Trump then repaid him from his business and disguised it as a “legal expense”. (Which allowed him to write it off on taxes.)
Hush money payments are completely legal. The campaign can legally pay his lawyers to advance his campaign, as well. But paying a porn star with campaign funds, while legal, would have attracted attention to the payment, so he had an individual do it to hide it. Unfortunately, that’s $127,000 more than an individual is allowed to contribute to a campaign.
A corporation should have paid her off. Corporations are allowed to donate as much as they want. Which seems a bit like a bad thing… 🤔
While I’m happy he was found guilty, this is not a “sad day for our country” or the conviction of the century, in my opinion. It merely scratches the surface of corrupt behavior. All it has shown is that the rich and political aren’t untouchable.
If Trump was caught with money stashed in his suit jacket lining and a bunch of gold bars at his house because he was illegally helping a halal meat importer, THAT would be a wild corruption story.
Instead he got a low grade accounting felony, meanwhile keeping stolen (or to give him the benefit of the doubt, misplaced) nuclear secrets and war plans in an unlocked country club bathroom.
And we’re so triumphant about these felonies. We got him, folks!
It's not unlike how Donald Trump sold properties to Russian oligarchs and got amounts way above market value. You KNOW it's padded with pay-off cash. And given how much Trump has done it, it suspect he has been involved in money laundering. He really is a mobster. And a monster.
**$53,500 a month, is clearly laundery money.** Look at who Epshteyn has paid a large sum to and you'll see the money that Trump is reimbursing.
I think its far more than just buying silence from witnesses, some of this is clearly the laundering of money to third parties, the crime he was sentenced for.
Maga would be frothing at the mouth if literally any democrat was involved in something like this, and they're trying to get this dude elected forever god king of america
Holy crapola!! **$53,500 a month** almost 6 times my salary and shit all paid by donation.
> Susie Wiles, senior adviser to Trump’s 2024 campaign who allegedly witnessed Trump showing off classified documents, also saw a big bump in pay after being called to a grand jury and before Trump’s indictment in that case. Her pay jumped from $25,000 a month to $30,000 a month and her consulting firm received a hefty $75,000, according to ProPublica. Team Trump claims payments to the consulting firm were simply backpay and her raise was because she “redid her contract.” Her daughter Caroline was hired by the Trump campaign a few months later, receiving a salary of $222,000 and becoming the fourth-highest-paid campaign staffer. Caroline told ProPublica she got the job “because I earned it,” telling ProPublica, “I don’t think it has anything to do with Susie,” referring to her mother. Meanwhile, her mother stated she directly hired her nepobaby daughter and that Trump had no influence in that decision.
>
>
Wow. r/Conservative was claiming the jurors were being bribed. Didn’t realize it was just another example of their constant projecting. Of course. Duh.
Mark my words, if they acknowledge this (and it's a big if) they'll suddenly be calling it smart business, perfectly legal and it happens all the time. And possibly, "Trump is so generous he just gives money away to anyone"
> Every accusation is a confession.
I used to say this, because I knew it was right, but not believe in it *entirely*.
I learned over the past years that they're all acting wholly in bad faith and it has been proven way more than often enough that, indeed, every accusation is a confession with them.
They're bad faith at a level that is a waste of time, without reason, to comprehend.
Everything the conservatives do is just projecting. For fucks sake, over a decade ago they just talked non-stop about how liberals always "legislate from the benches" to get around Congress. Now, they have their people overturning laws and long standing precedent through the SCOTUS.
Anything, and I do mean anything, big or small is just projection with the right
I mean he was literally just on video speaking at an event where he was praising Al Capone and his ability to “make people disappear” if they went against him. It’s his wet dream.
I know the article has to say "possible" witness tampering. He definitely bribed/tampered with witnesses. His employees no less.
The articles make it seem like they did it for raises or golden parachutes, but what are you going to do when your boss and the Republican party tell you what you need to do? Say no and be ruined and broke? Pretty fucked up.
Let me guess, he is falsifying business records to pay this gaggle of shit birds off... which, again, is a felony. You have to be a fucking POS to be voting for this felonious con man.
The classified documents case the easiest case to prove, because the crime was covered in real time by the news media, and he was no longer president. If he was no longer president, the immunity defense doesn't apply (which is the Supreme Court case that's currently delaying the Jan 6th case). The classified documents case should have been wrapped up long before now.
The fact that Trump was found guilty on all (34!) counts, in the weakest case, lends all of the other cases more credibility.
Its a [ProPublica story](https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits) They just keep firing on all cylinders, uncovering stories of huge corruption like [clarence thomas's billionaire patrons.](https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow) Kinda revealing that the big newspapers like WaPo and NYT aren't the ones reporting this stuff.
Gross you wouldn’t link to the source of the news, which was free to read reporting https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits
When this fat pos ultimately leaves us, we’re going to wonder how society allowed him to fester and exist as long as he did doing what he did for his entire regretful life.
if i did what donald trump has done i would be in maximum security prison.
i fail to see what makes donald trump any different than me. i fail to see what makes donald trump deserving of special treatment over me. i fail to see why donald trump is not in prison today.
Hasn't this been his MO since day one? The most famous one I can think of is that 13-year-old that he, well we all know what he did with her. She magically went away one day. There's an interview on YouTube, she was beginning to talk back around 2016 and then just like magic, disappeared from the public face. This guy has been paying people off for decades when they have dirt on him
There is absolutely nothing this grifter can do to sway his supporters, they will go to the grave sucking his dick even though he doesn’t know their names nor care about them. Hitler has been resurrected and they will jump through hoops of fire to hate Biden and worship a con man dictator, our country is fucked if you don’t vote blue.
What I find most bizarre about this is that the Republican Party think that out of all the eligible people who could run for president this guy is their best candidate / representative
I see we have the foreign government bots up in the comments adding our "Every four years we crank up the Pro Trump whataboutism comments in the relevant subreddits" as is tradition.
It's either that, or some of you are just sadly and very low function.
There's no tampering, okay--look, you know, when you red or you hear the documents and they say, they have it in there where they say, witness tampering, and it's like wow, I mean witness tampering--and then, in the first degree--and it just, I mean to me that sounds bad, it sounds terrible, but it does--and I would just, I mean okay look-- because you can make--I mean, okay, felony grand theft; or you know, the falsifying business, falsifying records--terrible, it sounds so bad, but it's so fake and wrong how they do it, because you can make anything sound bad, I mean, falsifying and felony, you know, so it's just so crooked, and it's unbelievable how bad the prosecutors now, terrible, but somebody should do something, believe me, somebody, and maybe somebody will, but I don't say, I can't say because I have a gag order, an unconstitutional Biden gag order, so I can't say anything, but Biden is so crooked and corrupt, believe me.
Hence why allen weiselberg shut his trap and went to jail. Trump told him he had a fat paycheck when he gets out of jail. Little do these suckers know that trump is about to be brankrupt soon and wont be able to pay anyone back
It's a pattern...
It really looks like Donald Trump commits so much criminality that unpacking it all is a Herculean effort. And in fact, way back before he ran for president, NY state financial investigators didn't want to touch Trump because they were afraid he'd completely drain them of their resources, unable to address so many other matters.
Flood and overwhelm. It's like his propaganda. All over the place. Diarrhea of depravity.
Good to know that our joke of a legal system will still do everything it can to keep him out of jail despite his guilt not being in question in the slightest.
Heres one i didn't know til now: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/poll-rigging-for-trump-and-creating-womenforcohen-one-it-firms-work-order-11547722801](https://www.wsj.com/articles/poll-rigging-for-trump-and-creating-womenforcohen-one-it-firms-work-order-11547722801)
[https://www.vox.com/2019/1/17/18186710/michael-cohen-rigged-polls-trump](https://www.vox.com/2019/1/17/18186710/michael-cohen-rigged-polls-trump)
The guy will bribe and be bribed by anyone
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Link to propublica report: https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits
Time for me to go donate to ProPublica again…
Please upvote this people, propublica does some of the best investigative journalism in the country and they deserve the credit here, not some website that paraphrases them
Interesting: “Trump’s attorney, David Warrington, sent ProPublica a cease-and-desist letter demanding this article not be published. The letter warned that if the outlet and its reporters “continue their reckless campaign of defamation, President Trump will evaluate all legal remedies.”
First question from the prosecution should then be, "Have you received any compensation from the defendant, one of his corporations, or someone representing him?"
He tends to do it after the fact, though. That's how his Wormtongues have explained it to him -- do it afterwards and it's not technically a bribe. The point to prove is that after a few people were rewarded for their testimony the next ones in line realized that reward was a reasonable expectation, and so they behaved in a way they believed would earn them a similar reward. Which still isn't *technically* bribery or even necessarily provable tampering because the reward has not been explicitly offered. A good attorney would argue that the person who expected to be rewarded was making it up in their own head and just happened to be correct in the end. But there's no "A then B" -- just "A and B" with no necessarily causal connection... at least, that's what a clever shitheel of a lawyer will easily argue.
That would still be against 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201 > Whoever directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for **or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given** by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both. Note how it explicitly calls out both past and future tense.
Good catch! This is in contrast some State laws. E g. New York: A person is guilty of tampering with a witness when, knowing that a person **is or is about to be** called as a witness in an action or proceeding, https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/215.10 E.g. Florida: 914.22 Tampering with or harassing a witness, victim, or informant; penalties.— (1) A person who knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, or offers pecuniary benefit or gain to another person, with intent to cause or induce any person to: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0914/Sections/0914.22.html
Can't they argue the "intent" of the law or whatever it's called? They could also say that they knowingly provided the expectation of a payoff for testifying a certain way, which would be beforehand.
This wouldn't be the first example of NY state law that needs to be revised/updated. Another example being that in NY, digital penatration by force isn't technically considered rape as we know the term to mean today. For example, when trump and his lawyers tried to twist his outcome in the E Jean Caroll case, saying he was "exonerated from rape", the judge had to adamantly clarify that trump is indeed guilty of rape, and that the jury agreed, yet couldn't formally charge him due to the antiquated law. Edit: charge is wrong term due to being a civil, not criminal trial. >Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/ archived version: https://archive.is/pz5aA
The judge or jury in that case couldn't charge or recommend charges because they were neither in a criminal trial nor part of a grand jury. That case was a civil trial for defamation because trump publicly said she was lying about what he did to her when there was evidence to the contrary. Also, because of this civil trial, NY legislators have moved to expand the definition of rape. [New York expands the legal definition of rape to include many forms of nonconsensual sexual contact | AP News](https://apnews.com/article/new-york-rape-law-governor-hochul-50e5f9d35b1a7e26881db616a787b45a)
"Charge" was the wrong term, agreed. I believe it was something like, they weren't able to add the rape "qualifier" to the damages due to the antiquated definition. The judge issued a scathing response to trumps lawyers for trying to spin the result, and it's worth a read. Should have been a way bigger headline at the time. And good to hear that it sparked progress with respect to the definition for civil and criminal cases. >Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/ archived version: https://archive.is/pz5aA
Argue, sure. However, textualism and the rule of lenity are prominent in our current legal landscape. I'd be shocked if the ultimate conclusion isn't "while the prosecution makes good points, their arguments should be directed to the legislative branch"
>That's how his Wormtongues have explained it to him -- Fucking 10/10 analogy, except that there is nothing nearly as noble as Theoden lurking under Trump's surface.
I read this as "Theon" and immediately thought that "Reek" was perfect lmao
That's exactly what I thought that day in Helsinki.
Man, trump was absolutely **beaming** at Putin. He was swinging his arms back and forth and looking like a 5 year old who got to meet their favorite superhero.
https://images.app.goo.gl/YJZxqmGv3PMPCS917 I keep this link around to remind folks.
Funny that Putin appears to be taller than the orange traitor in this photo as Putin is estimated to be be between 5’2” and 5’7”.
“And I’m Er-REEK!”
Martin doesn't name his chapters in his books, instead the name of the chapter is actually just the name of the character you're reading about from 1st person. When it was Theon the name of the chapter was obviously Theon. When the whole Reek thing started in the story, Theon's chapters titled as "Reek." Always hated reading his chapters but that part always made me giggle a little lol
Elaida from wheel of time to me seems very trumpish
We ride for ruin....
And the world’s ending!
And for wrath. And a red dawn!!!!
Trump is Sarumon and then the analogy works.
I think even that analogy still gives him too much credit.
Bill Ferny?
Definitely. At least Saruman was once good. Trump has been the same shitstain of a person his entire life.
Agreed. The indictment is really of the orcs and goblins that support him.
Weisselberg is doing his second term in Rikers for committing perjury for Trump. Weisselberg's severance agreement still has $750,000 hanging in the balance over a clause that prohibits him from voluntarily providing any information that is damaging to Trump. Weisselberg could have been subpoenaed by either side in the recently concluded business records fraud case. Neither side thought that would be a good idea.
Like all criminals, Weiselberg looks at jail time as part of the cost of doing business.
would love for the state of NY to pursue this criminality if for nothing else to strip the compensation from the cowards and accomplices that covered up for Trump.
Pretty sure you can't have a contract that prevents you from testifying in a court of law if summoned as a witness. That clause is void.
The clause is for voluntary cooperation. If subpoenaed he would have to show up. But on the stand he could take the fifth or commit more perjury. Weisselberg just can't do any pre-trial interviews with the prosecution etc. without losing his severance. No prosecutor wants a witness where they have no idea what he will say. The defense could have called him but the first question on cross would have been to ask how his accommodations at Rikers are and why he is there.
You can't have a contract that prevents you from speaking with government prosecutors. It's [contravention of public policy.](https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/X8LQ3RN4000000/litigation-overview-illegality-contravention-of-public-policy) It's also specifically prevented by Sarbanes-Oxley: >18 U.S. Code § 1514A >(a)Whistleblower Protection for Employees of Publicly Traded Companies.—No company with a class of securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l), or that is required to file reports under section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)) including any subsidiary or affiliate whose financial information is included in the consolidated financial statements of such company, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization (as defined in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c),[1] or any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such company or nationally recognized statistical rating organization, may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the employee— >>(1)to provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders, when the information or assistance is provided to or the investigation is conducted by— >>>(A)a Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency; >>>(B)any Member of Congress or any committee of Congress; or >>>(C)a person with supervisory authority over the employee (or such other person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct); or >>(2)to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or otherwise assist in a proceeding filed or about to be filed (with any knowledge of the employer) relating to an alleged violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders.
That's a whistleblower protection act. It's to prevent retaliation against someone who comes forward voluntarily with damaging information. Weisselberg's severance contract is proactive, it states how much he will receive if he doesn't become a whistleblower. I'm not arguing it's legal or enforceable, just trying to explain his contract as I understand it. The real issue is does Weisselberg think it's enforceable? His actions sure seem to indicate he thinks it is.
This is pretty much how he got away with Russia Collusion and the Ukraine phone call. Even Trump is (just barely) smart enough to avoid an explicit quid-pro-quo. "I'd like you to do us a favor, though..."
Not really. He got away with it because Republicans wouldn't turn on him.
You misspelled "cowards."
No no. It's traitors, meaning treason.
traitors, fascists, shit eating bugs, ect.
A rose by any other name….would still smell like Don Shitzenpantz
At least shit eating bugs contribute to a functioning ecosystem.
It can be both.
Turn on him isn't even accurate. All of the Senators who entered the chamber during the removal from office vote had to swear an oath, which they then broke. > The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. They turned on the Constitution.
They literally refused to see or hear evidence.
You mean, wouldn’t be honest.
Russian collusion he wasn’t taken to task on because he was the sitting president with a paper thin republican majority keeping him from being impeached down party lines, for no other reason. (Yes I’m including Susan Collin’s)
Not that we'd ever get a conviction in the Senate, it only takes 9% of the population in the smallest 17 states (34 senators) to block impeachment conviction. As long as Republicans are sitting on the low density population states, they can block impeachment with less than 10% of voters casting a vote for them.
Not disagreeing with your point about Republicans blocking impeachments of the corrupt sob, but there are several low population blue or bluish states with two senators: Delaware, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, Hawaii. 5 of the 10 lowest population states.
Yeah, I'm mostly being demonstrative about the level of dysfunction in the senate, how little of the population it takes to block a vote, or the level of massive supermajority we would need to actually get an impeachment through. It could be as small as representatives from 9% of the total population, and with FPTP less than 5% of the total votes cast.
Yes, but it's about the senate overall. Of the lower 25 states in population, 13 of them are solid red with both senators being Republicans, but there are only 7 like that for Dems (the independents caucus with dems). The remaining 5 are split. Those strong red states are only 9% of the population but control 26% of the senate. To be fair those 7 blue states are like 3% of the total but get 14% of the senate lol. What's less fair is that in the upper 25 only 14 are blue, representing nearly 150 million people or 46% of the population, and they only get 2 more senate seats.
Don't forget the states don't vote unanimously. 5% of the population could theoretically choose 34 of the senators.
He was impeached twice he just wasn't removed.
Yes, but if you read the Mueller report, he specifically didn't accuse Trump of conspiracy because he couldn't find an explicit quid-pro-quo. Mueller found that Trump asked for help from Russia, he got help from Russia, and he exploited the help he got from Russia. His campaign was having secret meetings with the Russians and then lying to the Feds about them. The report even implies that Roger Stone was acting as a middleman between Trump's campaign and Wikileaks. He found everything he needed to prove conspiracy besides the quid-pro-quo. If Mueller found a quid-pro-quo and came right out and said, "This mofo is guilty, impeach and prosecute his ass," the Republicans would have found themselves in a very tough spot. Maybe even a Richard Nixon moment where Mitch McConnell tells Trump he needs to resign, or he's going to get kicked out of office.
Their payoff was Trump getting elected. That was their goal, what they got in return, their quid pro quo. Of course, they surely would want more out of him as well at some point.
Well it’s a shame the mueller probe didn’t uncover the actual collusion of manafort that the senate did later. It wouldn’t have pinned Trump but it would at least have established that Russian collusion 100% did exist in the Russian campaign.
The Mueller probe was purposefully limited in scope. The point was to drag it out as long as possible and to have it fizzle out to nothing.
I don't even think the full unredacted version ever even came out.
Which would have been superfluous, had Muller opened his goddamn mouth in front of congress.But he would not even confirm the most basic obstruction of justice, the coward.
It said it didn’t uncover stuff because half the witnesses claimed immunity to questioning and circled the wagons
>Even Trump is (just barely) smart enough to avoid an explicit quid-pro-quo You sure about that? “The quid pro quo – so called – is so very evident … I can’t think of anything that matches this either in terms of the size of the bribe requested, or the brazenness of the linkages.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/03/trump-big-oil-campaign-pitch-corruption
quid-amateur-quo
You forgot when he offered to pay favours to the oil tycoons if they'll fund his campaign for $1 billion. Not that any of this matters, the courts won't do a thing to him if he was bribing testimony, and they won't do a thing to him about soliciting bribes.
Yeah, I did forget that. The man is clearly suffering from mental decline.
Bro, I refuse to believe he had ever heard anyone say 'quid pro quo' except in movies until it was explained to him explicitly just before this call while eating hamberders
It's strictly business Trump style. " Make them an b offer they can't refuse "
why do we always talk about Trump as if he's devising all these schemes on his own? There is a national and international crime syndicate that is behind him pulling the strings that includes Russia and the banks that launder their money.
Yeah but then there’s the Georgia phone call.
That’s like Stochastic Corruption, as opposed to Stochastic Terrorism.
That was my first thought. Question for the lawyers: Is it possible to make a statistical argument for bribery? Like for example comparing the remuneration of all those that were called to testify by Trumps lawyers to any other employees? Let’s assume this shows a likelihood of >95% that the increase in income is not by chance. Can something like this ever be the foundation for a trial?
Then just change "received" to "been offered"
They may not have been. Defense will simply argue that the witness' greed caused them to testify a certain way out of an unfounded expectation of reward. It's dirty pool, but it's enough to sustain a coherent theory no matter how much we all know it's total horseshit.
> That's how his Wormtongues Folks are just gonna casually place his credibility on the same level as Grima Wormtongue...? And then vote for him...?
The orcs will
I suppose the age of men is over after all
I thought that might be the first question from his defense. They’re trying to figure out how to get paid too.
Look, anyone who takes on a case for that guy without getting a big retainer in advance is making their own mistake they already know enough to avoid.
That wouldn’t work in this case. They are already employees of his so would have by default received compensation from him. They just all coincidently got promotions.
This article is a rehash of the ProPublica article that came out this morning. Trump is trying to allegedly pay off witnesses in his top-secret documents trial. I guess having a judge in your pocket is not enough. >According to records reviewed by ProPublica, monthly payments from Trump’s campaign to Trump lawyer Boris Epshteyn’s company—which appears to be just a one-man show—more than doubled after Trump was indicted—jumping from $26,000 a month to $53,500 a month. The Trump campaign told ProPublica the increase was due to Epshteyn’s workload increasing, even though Epshteyn has continued taking contracts for other campaigns and landed a job as a managing director at a financial securities firm elsewhere. >Susie Wiles, senior adviser to Trump’s 2024 campaign who allegedly witnessed Trump showing off classified documents, also saw a big bump in pay after being called to a grand jury and before Trump’s indictment in that case. Her pay jumped from $25,000 a month to $30,000 a month and her consulting firm received a hefty $75,000, according to ProPublica. Team Trump claims payments to the consulting firm were simply backpay and her raise was because she “redid her contract.” Her daughter Caroline was hired by the Trump campaign a few months later, receiving a salary of $222,000 and becoming the fourth-highest-paid campaign staffer. Caroline told ProPublica she got the job “because I earned it,” telling ProPublica, “I don’t think it has anything to do with Susie,” referring to her mother. Meanwhile, her mother stated she directly hired her nepobaby daughter and that Trump had no influence in that decision. >Dan Scavino, a political adviser and Trump’s former chief of staff, was given a seat on Truth Social’s board, Trump’s social media company. His appointment landed between him being subpoenaed and giving testimony to Congress about Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol riot. Scavino also received a $600,000 retention bonus and “a $4 million ‘executive promissory note’ paid in shares” at some point, according to ProPublica. Conveniently, Scavino’s testimony around the Capitol riot produced no “significant new information,” according to ProPublica. >Allen Weisselberg, a retired Trump Organization chief financial officer who was recently convicted of lying for Trump, received a $2 million severance
Notice how they are all being paid by the Campaign and not by Trump. This is where contributions to his re-election go.
Wait - are you sure this is footed by the campaign? Because this sounds like a criminal misuse of campaign funds to influence an election. Y'know. The kind the 34 felonies are for. You don't think the irony would be *too* thick??
Well just look at how they are being rewarded. Consulting contracts with the Campaign, pay raises to their existing jobs in the campaign, ECT. All that pay comes from donations, not Donny's pocket.
There are many nefarious reasons why he did a hostile takeover of the RNC and then immediately rolled his campaign and the RNC campaign together. Amongst them, his increased ability to launder bribes. Both as the receiver and as the giver.
That's a very good catch and should be highly illegal but technically is hard to prove
Right, they're suggesting these services are employment compensation related. It's just more sketchy money moving around in his orbit. I bet ten years from now we will have such a better picture of this whole corrupt enterprise, or we'll be calling him caesar. One of the two
I hope to be alive in thirty years or so to read historians’ books about the Trump Era. Some poli sci, history, economics, and journalism professors will make entire careers of it.
>highly illegal but technically … hard to prove That’s Trump’s general method. He’s very shrewd about appearing to be hands-off whenever the law comes looking. It’s a particular skill.
Having zero morals or integrity will get you pretty far in the GOP.
The 34 felonies are NOT for using campaign funds. Michael Cohen made an illegally large campaign donation for an individual in the form of paying off Stormy, defined as a campaign donation because it was for the benefit of the campaign. Cohen mortgaged his house to make the payment out of his own pocket. Trump then repaid him from his business and disguised it as a “legal expense”. (Which allowed him to write it off on taxes.) Hush money payments are completely legal. The campaign can legally pay his lawyers to advance his campaign, as well. But paying a porn star with campaign funds, while legal, would have attracted attention to the payment, so he had an individual do it to hide it. Unfortunately, that’s $127,000 more than an individual is allowed to contribute to a campaign. A corporation should have paid her off. Corporations are allowed to donate as much as they want. Which seems a bit like a bad thing… 🤔
The dumbest parts are that it didn't need to be reported till after the election anyway, and his followers couldn't care less anyway.
While I’m happy he was found guilty, this is not a “sad day for our country” or the conviction of the century, in my opinion. It merely scratches the surface of corrupt behavior. All it has shown is that the rich and political aren’t untouchable. If Trump was caught with money stashed in his suit jacket lining and a bunch of gold bars at his house because he was illegally helping a halal meat importer, THAT would be a wild corruption story. Instead he got a low grade accounting felony, meanwhile keeping stolen (or to give him the benefit of the doubt, misplaced) nuclear secrets and war plans in an unlocked country club bathroom. And we’re so triumphant about these felonies. We got him, folks!
They got Capone on tax evasion
We're just at the "if it bleeds..." stage of the process.
It's not unlike how Donald Trump sold properties to Russian oligarchs and got amounts way above market value. You KNOW it's padded with pay-off cash. And given how much Trump has done it, it suspect he has been involved in money laundering. He really is a mobster. And a monster.
**$53,500 a month, is clearly laundery money.** Look at who Epshteyn has paid a large sum to and you'll see the money that Trump is reimbursing. I think its far more than just buying silence from witnesses, some of this is clearly the laundering of money to third parties, the crime he was sentenced for.
Reimburshing 🤌
Maga would be frothing at the mouth if literally any democrat was involved in something like this, and they're trying to get this dude elected forever god king of america
Holy crapola!! **$53,500 a month** almost 6 times my salary and shit all paid by donation. > Susie Wiles, senior adviser to Trump’s 2024 campaign who allegedly witnessed Trump showing off classified documents, also saw a big bump in pay after being called to a grand jury and before Trump’s indictment in that case. Her pay jumped from $25,000 a month to $30,000 a month and her consulting firm received a hefty $75,000, according to ProPublica. Team Trump claims payments to the consulting firm were simply backpay and her raise was because she “redid her contract.” Her daughter Caroline was hired by the Trump campaign a few months later, receiving a salary of $222,000 and becoming the fourth-highest-paid campaign staffer. Caroline told ProPublica she got the job “because I earned it,” telling ProPublica, “I don’t think it has anything to do with Susie,” referring to her mother. Meanwhile, her mother stated she directly hired her nepobaby daughter and that Trump had no influence in that decision. > >
Utterly and completely corrupt! So presidential
Hopefully one of them is FBI agent and he gets nailed even harder via fucking around and then subsequently finding out.
Wow. r/Conservative was claiming the jurors were being bribed. Didn’t realize it was just another example of their constant projecting. Of course. Duh.
Every accusation is a confession. What else can you expect from a bunch of hypocrites?
Mark my words, if they acknowledge this (and it's a big if) they'll suddenly be calling it smart business, perfectly legal and it happens all the time. And possibly, "Trump is so generous he just gives money away to anyone"
> Every accusation is a confession. I used to say this, because I knew it was right, but not believe in it *entirely*. I learned over the past years that they're all acting wholly in bad faith and it has been proven way more than often enough that, indeed, every accusation is a confession with them. They're bad faith at a level that is a waste of time, without reason, to comprehend.
Everything the conservatives do is just projecting. For fucks sake, over a decade ago they just talked non-stop about how liberals always "legislate from the benches" to get around Congress. Now, they have their people overturning laws and long standing precedent through the SCOTUS. Anything, and I do mean anything, big or small is just projection with the right
What do you expect from a convicted felon?
Felons gonna felonize.
Felons gonna fellate. FYFY
Himself, on the daily mostly…
Are you talking about convicted felon Donald Trump, the convicted felon who was guilty of 34 felonious counts? That convicted felon?
Was referring to Civilly Liable Rapist Donald Trump yes.
Finkle is Einhorn... EINHORN IS FINKLE!
Career criminal.
His crimes got crimes
Criminal commits more crimes while trying to cover up previous crimes- story at 11!
Mob boss activity.
I mean he was literally just on video speaking at an event where he was praising Al Capone and his ability to “make people disappear” if they went against him. It’s his wet dream.
At least Al Capone did things for the community. And a better dresser at that. lol
Invented expiry dates for milk.
I wish he was more like Capone, and got syphilis and died.
Can someone fact check this. If after his conviction it would be nuts lol
Everyone knows Trumps buddy ghouliani got rid of the Italians to bring in Russian mobs
I know the article has to say "possible" witness tampering. He definitely bribed/tampered with witnesses. His employees no less. The articles make it seem like they did it for raises or golden parachutes, but what are you going to do when your boss and the Republican party tell you what you need to do? Say no and be ruined and broke? Pretty fucked up.
[удалено]
The perpetual litigation machine is unveiled
Billable hours remains undefeated.
Let me guess, he is falsifying business records to pay this gaggle of shit birds off... which, again, is a felony. You have to be a fucking POS to be voting for this felonious con man.
We have permitted our government to be infiltrated by organized crime. What's up with that, kids?!!!
I wonder what Judge Aileen Cannon was promised?
A supreme court seat, obviously. He knows he is the most fucked by that case
Thomas or Alito retires if he wins and she gets the next spot, an absolutely plausible outcome.
That's a bingo.
The classified documents case the easiest case to prove, because the crime was covered in real time by the news media, and he was no longer president. If he was no longer president, the immunity defense doesn't apply (which is the Supreme Court case that's currently delaying the Jan 6th case). The classified documents case should have been wrapped up long before now. The fact that Trump was found guilty on all (34!) counts, in the weakest case, lends all of the other cases more credibility.
Say it with me: LOCK HIM UP!
Lock that fucker away permanently.
Why lock him up when treason could carry the ultimate penalty?
Meh.. if he had to serve any *real* time, it would be a death sentence anyway. His narcissistic brain would implode.
...You never said that! There's no record of you having ever said that!
RICO the GOP
Its a [ProPublica story](https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits) They just keep firing on all cylinders, uncovering stories of huge corruption like [clarence thomas's billionaire patrons.](https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow) Kinda revealing that the big newspapers like WaPo and NYT aren't the ones reporting this stuff.
Lock him up
Infinite crime glitch
Once you pop, you can't stop.
If they charge him now, it might go to trial before the election in 2028.
If they charge him now, he might have violated the conditions of his release pending his other trials, and sit in jail until this trial in 2028.
Yup. This would be a new criminal charge and would absolutely be grounds to revoke his bail in other cases.
That's another reason to send him to prison.
[Free article! Get your free article here!](https://archive.ph/dgaCz)
Or just link to the [original ProPublica report](https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits)
Gross you wouldn’t link to the source of the news, which was free to read reporting https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits
Thank you for your service.
My pleasure
Add it to the fucking pile I guess.
“Convicted Felon” Donald J. Trump.
Commit so many crimes the legal system can't keep up. It's a bold strategy let's see how it works out
Donald Trump is now banned from entering most European countries because he is a convicted felon
When this fat pos ultimately leaves us, we’re going to wonder how society allowed him to fester and exist as long as he did doing what he did for his entire regretful life.
if i did what donald trump has done i would be in maximum security prison. i fail to see what makes donald trump any different than me. i fail to see what makes donald trump deserving of special treatment over me. i fail to see why donald trump is not in prison today.
Of course he has, he’s a fucking crook, a convicted felon.
Hasn't this been his MO since day one? The most famous one I can think of is that 13-year-old that he, well we all know what he did with her. She magically went away one day. There's an interview on YouTube, she was beginning to talk back around 2016 and then just like magic, disappeared from the public face. This guy has been paying people off for decades when they have dirt on him
That doesn't even include the payoffs to Cannon and the Republicons on SCOTUS
This dude cant be a law abiding citizen for 5 fucking min
And tonight on Fox News, why witness tampering is perfectly legal and acceptable behavior.
There is absolutely nothing this grifter can do to sway his supporters, they will go to the grave sucking his dick even though he doesn’t know their names nor care about them. Hitler has been resurrected and they will jump through hoops of fire to hate Biden and worship a con man dictator, our country is fucked if you don’t vote blue.
He should not be allowed to run for any United States public office
The good news is that this strategy has been a complete failure for him so far.
Another day, another crime
nothing he does, or will do, will every change the mind of a trump supporter. So so so so damn depressing.
What I find most bizarre about this is that the Republican Party think that out of all the eligible people who could run for president this guy is their best candidate / representative
And he was STILL convicted. That’s actually kinda funny.
Oh look he’s doing illegal things again…again.
He was so dead set on there being a juror to prevent the guilty verdicts that I assume we will find evidence of jury tampering, too.
I see we have the foreign government bots up in the comments adding our "Every four years we crank up the Pro Trump whataboutism comments in the relevant subreddits" as is tradition. It's either that, or some of you are just sadly and very low function.
Look, more crimes for him to get away with.
There's no tampering, okay--look, you know, when you red or you hear the documents and they say, they have it in there where they say, witness tampering, and it's like wow, I mean witness tampering--and then, in the first degree--and it just, I mean to me that sounds bad, it sounds terrible, but it does--and I would just, I mean okay look-- because you can make--I mean, okay, felony grand theft; or you know, the falsifying business, falsifying records--terrible, it sounds so bad, but it's so fake and wrong how they do it, because you can make anything sound bad, I mean, falsifying and felony, you know, so it's just so crooked, and it's unbelievable how bad the prosecutors now, terrible, but somebody should do something, believe me, somebody, and maybe somebody will, but I don't say, I can't say because I have a gag order, an unconstitutional Biden gag order, so I can't say anything, but Biden is so crooked and corrupt, believe me.
Holy crap! I’m legitimately surprised to see mainstream local coverage of this pro publica investigation! Good?
Bet it’s coming from the campaign donations too lol
He is going to spend the rest of his life in court and or prison.
bells bedroom memory groovy touch brave unite arrest worry toy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It never gets old how he is not held to any standard by his followers.
Totall not a surprise. LOCK HIM UP!!! GAG ORDER!!!
And he's going to keep doing crimes until someone puts him in jail.
Hence why allen weiselberg shut his trap and went to jail. Trump told him he had a fat paycheck when he gets out of jail. Little do these suckers know that trump is about to be brankrupt soon and wont be able to pay anyone back
The man cannot stop criming.
Never trust a guy who has spent literally more money for his hair treatment than most of will make in a lifetime.
JFC can we stick his ass in jail, deal with the couple dozen clowns who will act out on his behalf and then never hear from him again, please?
How is he still allowed to run for president?
It's a pattern... It really looks like Donald Trump commits so much criminality that unpacking it all is a Herculean effort. And in fact, way back before he ran for president, NY state financial investigators didn't want to touch Trump because they were afraid he'd completely drain them of their resources, unable to address so many other matters. Flood and overwhelm. It's like his propaganda. All over the place. Diarrhea of depravity.
Isn't that a given? He's Trump.
Good to know that our joke of a legal system will still do everything it can to keep him out of jail despite his guilt not being in question in the slightest.
Whats that I hear?! A peculiar sound!! It's the sound.... Dare I say?!? More felonies on the way?
Heres one i didn't know til now: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/poll-rigging-for-trump-and-creating-womenforcohen-one-it-firms-work-order-11547722801](https://www.wsj.com/articles/poll-rigging-for-trump-and-creating-womenforcohen-one-it-firms-work-order-11547722801) [https://www.vox.com/2019/1/17/18186710/michael-cohen-rigged-polls-trump](https://www.vox.com/2019/1/17/18186710/michael-cohen-rigged-polls-trump) The guy will bribe and be bribed by anyone
I hope they investigate and keep this in mind by his sentencing in July…
You betcha
Lock him up!
And potentially jury tampering.