• jonne@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    The hush money one is the first one to actually go to trial, so it’s mostly that. The documents case is basically suppressed until they can somehow get rid of this judge, and the other 2 cases are also being held up in places.

    The hush money case isn’t likely to put him in prison though, I don’t think there’s any precedent of a politician going to prison for that. And of course there’s going to be appeals that can easily push it until past November.

    • NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      And it is going to get overturned on appeal. It was an obvious political trial with a judge that donated to Biden, his daughter was bringing in millions because of the trial and the prosecutor ran for office pledging to take down Trump. That’s why Trumps bringing in record donations from small donors now.

      • Absolute dumbass commentary. The jury decided the case, not the judge. Trump literally had no defense to the allegations other than bald denials. The evidence that he did the crimes was written in paper and undeniable.

        • NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          You’re just buying everything the MSM is selling, hook line & sinker. They wouldn’t let Trump have much of a defense. They wouldn’t even let an expert witness testify for the defense. And sure, the jury decides the case based on the instructions given by the judge and this is the only time a judge has ever given instructions like the ones in this case. You really don’t know much about the justice system if you believe that the judge in a case doesn’t play a major role in how a case is decided.

              • barsquid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                No, that’s not correct. You are receiving delusional propaganda about disallowing expert witnesses from somewhere. Where is that from?

                Bradley Smith was definitely allowed to testify as an expert, but the defense declined to call him. Here, since you like pretending to have read things direct from the court. He was not allowed to show up and instruct the jury, which is the same as decided in the prior cited cases in NY and OH.

                Where is your delusional propaganda from? The things you are claiming are lies that Donald has been tweeting. So perhaps your delusions are coming direct from the source: a lifelong con man and fraud who committed election interference in 2016.

      • Seleni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Don’t a lot of people run for office on a platform of arresting and convicting people who commit crimes, though? Or am I missing something?

        • NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah, that won’t happen, they’ve got such a stranglehold on surveillance in this country, it would never get off the ground and things are just going to get worse. Most younger people and some older people to either keep their face buried into their phones on Facebook or Tiktok propaganda machines or they just buy into everything the MSM tells them so until we fix that stuff there’s really no hope of things getting better