Chaos in USA

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

A case for Tulsi Gabbard to be Trump's running mate.
https://amgreatness.com/2024/05/03/six- ... ning-mate/
Some good points. I think she's in the top 3.
Tim Scott is a strong contender also.
I think Trump'll choose whichever will bring him the most votes in Battleground States.
That may be the female vote or the Black vote - difficult to tell at this point, and likely will be down to data only known to the professional political advisors.
Trump may well simultaneously announce a strong preference for whoever isn't picked as running mate to be in his putative Cabinet, thus trying to get the best of both worlds.
The Washington Examiner looks at 9 possibles here
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... -hopefuls/

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

[Dushan]

So good ol’ Joe not as senile as we think?

[Boac]

Let's hope the Chump's Tele-prompt works for his debate with Biden.............. https://x.com/i/status/1792232170494337236

[Dushan]

Shows discipline not to start ad-libing without the prepared speech.
Counter that with ol’ Joe saying “you now , the thing…”

[Boac]

....and you are, of course, quite right - otherwise he might have wandered off on his revised history of aerial warfare in the Civil War. Not bad for a C-in-C.



A C-in-C who folk would follow out of curiosity rather than loyalty!

[k3k3]

Trump has been found guilty on all counts.

[Woody]

11th July is the day pencilled in for the sentencing, anyone know if an appeal could be heard before that date?

[PHXPhlyer]

Donald Trump was convicted on felony charges. Will he go to prison?
Trump was convicted of falsifying business records, a class E felony punishable by a fine, probation or up to four years in prison.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... rcna153963

A New York jury's historic conviction of Donald Trump on felony charges means his fate is now in the hands of the judge he has repeatedly ripped as "corrupt" and "incompetent."

Two experts told NBC News that it's unlikely Trump will be imprisoned based on his age, lack of a criminal record and other factors — and an analysis of thousands of cases found that very few people charged with the same crime receive jail time. But a third expert told NBC News he believes it is "substantially" likely Trump could end up behind bars.

Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, a class E felony that is punishable by a fine, probation or up to four years in prison per count. During the trial, Judge Juan Merchan threatened to put Trump behind bars for violating his gag order, but it’s unclear whether the former president will face similar consequences now. It's expected that any sentence would be imposed concurrently, instead of consecutively.

Former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg, an NBC News analyst, said it's unlikely that Merchan would sentence Trump, 77, to any jail time, given his age and his status as a first-time, nonviolent offender. "I’d be very surprised if there's any sentence of incarceration at all," Rosenberg said. “Of course, he did spend a good bit of time insulting the judge who has the authority to incarcerate him.”

The next step for Trump at this point is his sentencing, which is set for July 11.

Arthur Aidala, a former prosecutor in the Brooklyn district attorney's office who's now a defense lawyer, said the judge will most likely use some of the time before sentencing to research similar cases to determine what the median sentence is.

"He wants to know before he sentences someone what the typical sentence is," Aidala said, and would consider other factors, like Trump's age and lack of a criminal record, while also taking into account the lack of injury caused by the crime. Aidala said he believes whatever punishment Merchan comes up with would be "a non-jail disposition."

An analysis conducted by Norm Eisen, who worked for House Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment, found that roughly 1 in 10 people who have been convicted of falsifying business records are imprisoned and that those cases typically involved other crimes.

Ron Kuby, a veteran New York criminal defense lawyer, took a different view.

“Judge Merchan is known for being a harsh sentencer when it comes to white-collar crimes committed by people who have wealth and privilege and power,” he said.

Kuby added he believes "it is substantially likely Judge Merchan will sentence Trump to jail or prison time," despite the logistical and practical complications that locking up a person with Secret Service protection would entail.

Kuby said that's because the criminal scheme went on for over a year and included a number of bad acts on Trump's part.

“It’s an entire course of conduct he was involved with — not just one bad decision,” he said.

Trump, however, most likely doesn't have to worry about missing the Republican National Convention, where he's expected to accept the party's nomination, even though it's taking place just days after his sentencing. Kuby said he'd most likely be able to remain free while he appeals the conviction.

Trump's behavior during the trial, including his flouting Merchan's gag order by making comments about witnesses and the jury, isn't likely to be a factor in the sentencing decision, Kuby said. It's also highly unlikely that comments that appeared to be aimed at sidestepping the gag order by Republican officials who attended the trial as Trump's guests will figure into Merchan's reasoning, Kuby added.

"If the judge is smart, he'd stay away from that," Kuby said. "The best way for judges not to get reversed in a sentencing is to stick to the facts and circumstances of the crimes and conviction."

Rosenberg said that despite Trump’s frequent criticisms of Merchan, which he likened to “a batter who’s been yelling at the umpire from before the first pitch,” Merchan appeared to run “a clean and fair trial.”

Rosenberg and Kuby agreed that Trump would appeal the verdict. Kuby said that could delay Trump's serving whatever punishment Merchan doles out for years, even if the appeal is ultimately unsuccessful.

His first appeal will be to the state Appellate Division, a midlevel appeals court, and it will almost certainly not decide the appeal until after the November election, Kuby said. If he loses there, he could then appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. A loss there would be followed by a request to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

If all that fails, Kuby said, he could then try turning to federal court in another attempt to eventually get the case before the Supreme Court.

The appeals process typically takes a long time — Kuby said he had one client who staved off prison time for six years — but there's another potential complicating factor in this case.

"If he becomes president of the United States, he cannot be incarcerated in a state prison" while he's in office, Kuby said, because it could prevent him from fulfilling his constitutional duties. If he lost his appeals, "by the time he leaves office — if he leaves office — he'd be ready to be incarcerated," he said.

PP

[probes]

Isn't it interesting how times and minds change.
The Constitution saying nothing about whether a convicted person can run for presidency (if I have understood it correctly) or being one from prison probably means that it didn't occur to the Founding Fathers that anything like that could happen.
Now it seems to mean that if it isn't explicitly forbidden, it can be done.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Russia bans felons from running for office, which is why putin had Navalny found guilty in a show trial. And then killed in prison.

Now it seems to mean that if it isn't explicitly forbidden, it can be done.

That's freedom for you...

[Woody]

There's been some reaction coming out of Moscow to Donald Trump's conviction.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says the Trump conviction shows the White House is "eliminating its political rivals by all possible legal and illegal means".

Kremlin doesn’t do irony then.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Those Chechens arrested for the 'terrorist attack' looked like the Kremlin had taken some pretty heavy irony objects to them

[Dushan]

Trump campaign donations are over $55 MILLION over just the last 9 hours.

"I believe this conviction of Trump is a blessing in disguise. This will make people mad as shhit because they know it’s a sham. Trump poll numbers will climb 5 to 8 points. The voters for Trump will turn out next election. Democrats you have United this country like never before."

-American Islandman on Twitter

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Biden-Trump debate to have commercial breaks, for the first time ever.
CNN have declined to say how many or how long.
Chances of them going to commercial every time Biden has a 'senior moment'?
Meanwhile, his ad challenging Trump to the debate had 5 jump cuts in the 13 seconds, about 9 words per cut is all Joe can string together.
See for yourself:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/bi ... mqU6w?t=13
And as a (lightly-)trained video producer, the number of cuts there should be in an announcement like this is....zero.

[probes]

Russia bans felons from running for office, which is why putin had Navalny found guilty in a show trial. And then killed in prison.

Now it seems to mean that if it isn't explicitly forbidden, it can be done.

That's freedom for you...

- well, then we'll have to assume that the court and legal system is corrupt?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I don't think it's a good idea to assume anything.
One has to look at the evidence.
As well as asking the two questions:
If you were trying to corrupt the system, how would you like it to run?
If you were trying to assure its integrity, how would things look?

[llondel]

Isn't it interesting how times and minds change.
The Constitution saying nothing about whether a convicted person can run for presidency (if I have understood it correctly) or being one from prison probably means that it didn't occur to the Founding Fathers that anything like that could happen.
Now it seems to mean that if it isn't explicitly forbidden, it can be done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs is the previous chap who tried it. He promised to pardon himself if he'd been elected.

[Hydromet]

Isn't it interesting how times and minds change.
The Constitution saying nothing about whether a convicted person can run for presidency (if I have understood it correctly) or being one from prison probably means that it didn't occur to the Founding Fathers that anything like that could happen.
Now it seems to mean that if it isn't explicitly forbidden, it can be done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs is the previous chap who tried it. He promised to pardon himself if he'd been elected.

The case of Debs raises an interesting question. Did the authors of the constitution only put minimal qualifications on being a president, so that convictions for political 'crimes' like those of Debs could not disqualify a candidate? We can't know now, but maybe they didn't think anyone as bad as Trump would ever be in a position to seriously challenge.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The USA formed as a country by breaking away from the UK.
Everyone writing the Constitution was a political criminal.

Note that the 25th Amendment, and Impeachment, limit the ability to remove a President to majorities of the Cabinet, including the VP, or to effectively both Houses of Congress.
However, there are almost no limits at all on who can stand as President, or for any other office in Federal or State institutions.

Effectively, the voters get to decide that, and this is wholly consistent with the libertarian principles in the Constitution. Each voter gets to decide for themselves.
Who got to be a voter was effectively the UK Reform act 56 years early. The US Constitution opened up the franchise, with the States deciding who got to vote.
The writers of the Constitution were never in doubt that complete a-holes would run for and gain office - they'd just rebelled against the same in the British Parliament.
What they arguably did not conceive was that anyone in the US would be dumb enough to vote for them.
But here we are, a felonious real estate tycoon with a big mouth and a corrupt, senile idiot as the only realistic choices because that's who most Americans are prepared to vote for.

..and I am no more proud of the jerks on offer as Canada's political 'leaders', or the majority of my countrymen who seem prepared to vote for one of them.
I am, however, quite proud of my own little corner of Canada, where the rebellion takes the form of only the absolute minimum of people standing for civic office to keep the streetlights on, not to implement any higher level government idiocies. Furthermore, the same applies to not taking government admin jobs, which also limits governments' abilities.
I would be interested to know if this is also happening in rural America.