The Omnibus P01135809 Criminal Investigation Thread

Another thing to remember is that Federal sentencing guidelines require a judge to consider if a person has any prior convictions. If they don’t, then the judge is supposed to hand down a lower sentence.

If Trump were to be given the maximum for what he’s charged with in NY (he won’t, of course) he’d be looking at nearly 200 years behind bars. So what happens if this case wraps up before a Federal case against him does? I’m guessing that he’ll be looking at closer to the maximum for any Federal crimes he’s convicted of.

It's out of the ordinary (in my experience covering criminal trials) for judges to impose consecutive sentences. Basically totaling the possible sentences makes for good click-bait, but really doesn't mean much. I would just be looking at whatever crime would carry the longest potential sentence if there's a conviction. I don't know if New York has mandatory sentences or sentencing guidelines, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.

Seems someone tried to fuck with the boom mic operator from CBS in NYC at the hearing today.

https://twitter.com/taliaotg/status/1643268610595381251?s=46&t=iYW3foyqIA6Tn8VWwn3nwQ

One thing this tweet tells me is I could get a job doing courtroom sketching. WTF are those things behind what I think is Trump? AI does better at drawing hands than this person does.

Guy at the back looks like Clarence Boddicker in a suit.

Like Bobby, Trump can't fly.

His brother could, that's why Fred cut him off from the fortune and pushed him to alcoholism and suicide.

This is bullshit. You can't arrest a sitting president and PRESIDENT Trump is still president.

How come Biden hasn't been arrested for having dementia? This is an unfair witch hunt.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/04/trump-mar-a-lago-indictment-speech/673639/

This sounds exactly like when an angry Karen calls the cops and they end up arresting her

Wow, this is as bad as any of the nadir episodes of SNL after the original cast left.



There's elements that might have worked in a better bit, but overall, it has to be seen to be believed about how awful it is.

Not sure if this should go here or in the joke thread.

TRUMP’S LAWYER JOE TACOPINA DONATED TO DEMOCRATIC REP WHO CALLED FOR TRUMP’S PROSECUTION

If this all works out, and Trump is somehow found guilty and goes to jail, I hope a wave of indictments ripples through congress. The shit that some of these people do is beyond the pale, and would have landed any one of us in prison for years without hope of ever seeing the Sun again. It would certainly be nice if George W. Bush finally went to prison for all the horrific shit he pulled while president.

Well, who a lawyer represents doesn't necessarily have anything to do with his own moral compass. Lawyer's are supposed to represent their client as a zealous advocate. As the old saw goes "If the law is on your side, pound the table. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If you don't have the law or the facts on your side, yell like hell and pound the table!" It looks to me like Tacopina is yelling like hell and pounding the table because he knows he doesn't have the law or the facts on his side. I also suspect that he got paid big $ upfront and has a thick enough skin to take the heat.

"I don't like the fact that he's surrounded by an OJ amount of lawyers. That means that not only is he guilty, but also that's he going to be found 'Not Guilty.'"

Nah, with Trump, that's just needing reserves for when they start quitting in inverse order of IQ.

It took a lot for OJ to be found not guilty -- the burden of proof, loose judging, some of the best defense attorneys available (not just quantity), some serious missteps by the prosecution, the ability to turn the case into a referendum on LAPD's racism/corruption/incompetence, OJ's celebrity/likeability and a lack of witnesses to directly tie OJ to the murders.

Trump likely doesn't have most of that. Yes, he has the burden of proof. Yes, he's a celebrity and to a certain demo, he's seen as likeable.

But unlike OJ, there's no reason to think that the judge here is going to be as loose with the reins as Judge Ito. Tacopina does not seem impressive from what little I've heard from/of him. Certainly not on the level of Johnnie Cochran, Robert Kardashian, Alan Derschowitz back in his prime, F. Lee Bailey, Barry Schreck, etc. As much as Trump might whine on social media that he's the victim of racist prosecutors, I don't think that is ever coming before the jury as a rationale. And unlike OJ, Trump has made any number of public statements admitting that he made the payments, and there will be it sounds as though they will have at least Cohen and Pecker to testify about Trump's involvement.

Also, OJ was on trial for murder.

Trump? Not so much.

The thing with falsifying documents is that it, almost by definition, creates a paper trail.

Seems like he has two main options:

1) "I didn't know what I was signing," a.k.a. the Henry Blake defense (in which case he'd better hope all the evidence that he did know is in the form of testimony, not documents).

2) Try to make sure at least one hardcore MAGAbot gets onto the jury so they can hang it by voting not guilty no matter what the evidence is.

I remember back when there was a constant refrain of "Obamessiah" here at WF. But no real Obama supporters that I ever came across compared Obama to Jesus in that way.

By contrast, there are real people who do compare Trump to Jesus, including Marjorie Taylor Greene.

https://apnews.com/article/donald-t...iracy-theory-670c45bd71b3466dcd6e8e188badcd1d

I think the sketch probably would have worked better if a better Trump impersonator had done it. I thought this one just didn't do a good job capturing Trump.

The trouble with defense 1) is that even if there is no document saying "I, Donald Trump, agree to falsify these business records so that the truth about my screwing porn stars doesn't hurt my election chances" it just is simply unbelievable in the face of the likely testimony from Cohen, Pecker and others that he did know what he was doing and they did this all to benefit him. His carefully cultivated image of being a master of business is going to also work against him. Given all his bragging in the past of what a great business person he is, I don't see how he can reasonably expect to convince anyone that there's a chance that underlings decided to embark on this scheme to protect him without his knowledge or consent, and he just randomly signed checks without knowing what they were really for.

I'd imagine that the jury pool drawing from Manhattan would have an inherently low chance of having hardcore MAGA supporters. and I suspect that they will not be able to stealth their way through to being on the actual jury. Some would be dismissed for cause, and each side can ask for (usually at least three) potential jurors to be booted. So I would not like his chances of getting a fervent MAGA supporter to help hang the jury.

Which I guess raises another thing.

It is possible and even probable for someone to have before the evidence came in to be in stone cold disbelief that the O.J. they are familiar with -- the football star, the Avis commercial guy, the star of the Naked Gun movies -- is a double murderer. That he would murder the mother of his kids.

I don't think anybody at all familiar with Trump could have the same level of initial doubt that he would not a) cheat on his wife with a porn star b) pay to cover that up c) engage in fudging records to make that happen.

The early line from his supporters is "sure he did it, but it shouldn't be considered a crime, and the only reason it's being considered that is political revenge by a racist prosecutor." I just don't see that a reasonable judge will allow him to articulate that defense in court, though.

''Character matters, and the American people are hungry for that message. We care about the conduct of our leaders, and we will not rest until we have leaders of good moral character.'' - Ralph Reed literally in the NY Times itself (!) back in 1998

Call me old fashioned but I do believe a person's character absolutely should be taken into account when that person is running for office of the president. Any man who treats women like their only purpose is a come dumpster DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE PRESIDENT OF WOMEN.

We really need to start a Jenee quote thread.

why is this funny?

Atrocious sentence structure, poor grammar and spelling, and the all-caps "PRESIDENT OF WOMEN" are simply perfect.

then you didn't actually read the sentence and therefore any comments regarding it, is irrelevant. much like most of your posts.