Trump Verdict Thread
May 30, 2024 1:52 PM   Subscribe

The jury has reached a verdict and is currently filling out paperwork until about 5:15 Eastern. Trump was looking cheerful and relaxed, sharing smiles and laughs with his lawyers, as they prepared to leave for the day. As soon as the judge announced that instead we had a verdict, his demeanor changes dramatically. He crossed his arms and knitted his brows. He continued to whisper with attorney Todd Blanche, but no longer cheerfully.

Live updates from Talking Points Memo as well.
posted by kensington314 (699 comments total) 75 users marked this as a favorite
 
Surely this.
posted by Mayor West at 1:55 PM on May 30 [120 favorites]


It's really beyond time for one of the graphic designers of MeFi to draft up a Shirley This mascot for the site.
posted by kensington314 at 1:57 PM on May 30 [51 favorites]


Perhaps this post should be merged with the other one from a few hours ago? Or vice-versa?
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 1:58 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]


A verdict by definition means unanimity, so there are two possibilities:

* I get to feel smug in my cynicism because of course nothing was ever going to happen to the man immune to all consequences who is above the law
* I get to be briefly, slightly happy
posted by Tomorrowful at 1:58 PM on May 30 [24 favorites]


oh, apologies, mods please delete if there's a duplicate thread. I didn't realize that.
posted by kensington314 at 1:58 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]


Either way, brace for screeds.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 1:59 PM on May 30 [4 favorites]


I'm making maple bourbon beans in the slow cooker. Not as a potential celebratory feast, but because I just can't help myself.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 2:01 PM on May 30 [10 favorites]


metafilter: brace for screeds.
posted by lalochezia at 2:01 PM on May 30 [60 favorites]


YES YES YES! 34 TIMES YES!
posted by dobbs at 2:07 PM on May 30 [68 favorites]


Surely this!
posted by kaibutsu at 2:08 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


Guilty on all counts, according to the NY Times.
posted by johnofjack at 2:08 PM on May 30 [17 favorites]


This is the happiest day of my life.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 2:08 PM on May 30 [21 favorites]


This is good.
posted by kickingtheground at 2:09 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


I wouldn't normally cut and paste something this long from CNN, but I thought everyone might enjoy it just this one time.

Follow the latest on the verdict for each of the counts below:

Count 1: GUILTY
Count 2: GUILTY
Count 3: GUILTY
Count 4: GUILTY
Count 5: GUILTY
Count 6: GUILTY
Count 7: GUILTY
Count 8: GUILTY
Count 9: GUILTY
Count 10: GUILTY
Count 11: GUILTY
Count 12: GUILTY
Count 13: GUILTY
Count 14: GUILTY
Count 15: GUILTY
Count 16: GUILTY
Count 17: GUILTY
Count 18: GUILTY
Count 19: GUILTY
Count 20: GUILTY
Count 21: GUILTY
Count 22: GUILTY
Count 23: GUILTY
Count 24: GUILTY
Count 25: GUILTY
Count 26: GUILTY
Count 27: GUILTY
Count 28: GUILTY
Count 29: GUILTY
Count 30: GUILTY
Count 31: GUILTY
Count 32: GUILTY
Count 33: GUILTY
Count 34: GUILTY
posted by clawsoon at 2:09 PM on May 30 [202 favorites]


34 guilty verdicts. Dang.
posted by gingerbeer at 2:10 PM on May 30 [4 favorites]


Lock him up.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:10 PM on May 30 [71 favorites]


holy fuck
posted by SansPoint at 2:10 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


Holy shit.

I might have to beg for mercy from one of my friends: I swore to him I would eat one of my locs if Trump was found guilty on even one count.

Gulp.

(And also HELL YEAH!!!)
posted by lord_wolf at 2:11 PM on May 30 [52 favorites]


Dear Diary, today I am briefly proud to be an American.
posted by Jacqueline at 2:11 PM on May 30 [35 favorites]


🥳
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 2:11 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


Well. Ain't that something?
posted by stet at 2:12 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]


Before the verdicts came in, I heard a commentator on MSNBC say: this is justice. Even if he is found not guilty, he had his day in court.
Which contrasts to his other cases where justice (even innocence) is denied.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 2:12 PM on May 30 [11 favorites]


CONSEQUENCES
posted by minervous at 2:12 PM on May 30 [10 favorites]


From the Washington Post live updates: "Donald Trump is looking at the jurors as they are polled individually, his hands wresting on his lap."

His hands what now?
posted by snofoam at 2:12 PM on May 30 [25 favorites]


What were the Vegas odds?
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 2:13 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]




He's a felon. An actual felon.
posted by cooker girl at 2:13 PM on May 30 [49 favorites]


Does this mean he can't vote in Florida now
posted by saladin at 2:15 PM on May 30 [103 favorites]


Overturned on appeal in 5…4….3…
posted by Optamystic at 2:15 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


Not president trump, not donald trump.

CONVICTED FELON DONALD TRUMP is the only way he can be referred to.
posted by lalochezia at 2:15 PM on May 30 [31 favorites]


omg
posted by hydra77 at 2:15 PM on May 30


Here's a "what now" overview. Many months, at least, of appeals. Incarceration unlikely. Maybe fines. "'I would like to see community service – picking up trash on the subway,' said Karen Friedman Agnifilo, a former top prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office." And due to those weak on crime laws, even as a convicted felon, he can still vote in Florida.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 2:16 PM on May 30 [9 favorites]


I am enjoying the schadenfreude along with everyone else, but nobody who was willing to vote for this piece of shit is going to change their opinion because he was convicted of doing something everyone knew he did.

But for now, SCHADENFREUDE!
posted by East14thTaco at 2:16 PM on May 30 [8 favorites]


TF(elon)G
posted by stet at 2:16 PM on May 30 [4 favorites]




Seems totally fair to presume he's cheating in this upcoming election.

Like he's a fact-in-law cheated, using campaign funds to hide the the shame of his affair with Stormy Daniels, in the 2016 election.
posted by k3ninho at 2:17 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.
posted by ducky l'orange at 2:17 PM on May 30 [4 favorites]


Conviced felon ex-president Donald Trump

I've been thinking I might want to put a yard sign out but I get nervous going with a candidate or a party because I live in a pretty red area. But maybe I could just get "GUILTY" printed up and put that in my yard. Seems factual and informative.
posted by hippybear at 2:18 PM on May 30 [29 favorites]


Compared to intentionally getting several hundred thousand Americans killed in 2020 these 34 counts are like convicting Capone on tax shenanigans, but I gotta take what I can get in this fallen world.
posted by torokunai at 2:18 PM on May 30 [56 favorites]


Let's all just enjoy this while we can, before they come back with a resolutely cowardly and minimal sentence that includes zero prison time.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:18 PM on May 30 [20 favorites]


Man, I really hope they're able to protect those jurors.
posted by furnace.heart at 2:18 PM on May 30 [118 favorites]


Man, I really hope they're able to protect those jurors.

Weirdly also mr. hippybear's first observation... "well, now all those jurors will have to move and get new jobs..."

I have no idea how well they've managed to keep their identities safe. I hope they've done well.
posted by hippybear at 2:20 PM on May 30 [28 favorites]


Does this mean he can't run for president again?

I am not sure how the US Presidential nominations work
posted by Faintdreams at 2:20 PM on May 30


"Sentencing date set for 11 July
Judge Juan Merchan has set sentencing for 11 July at 10am ET.

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche had asked Merchan for sentencing to be set for mid- or late July, because his lawyers now have to pivot to pre-trial hearings in Donald Trump’s other criminal case, the classified documents case in Florida."

Oops.
posted by gingerbeer at 2:21 PM on May 30 [15 favorites]


"I'm a very innocent man," says the man convicted on 34 counts.

On preview, Faintdreams, there's nothing in the Constitution that says convicted felons can't run for President.
posted by cooker girl at 2:21 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


First time he's actually won a popular vote?
posted by fnord at 2:22 PM on May 30 [226 favorites]


Does this mean he can't run for president again?

Rule changes are being deliberated right now as we speak.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 2:22 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


I legit teared up when I read the headline. I know it's not a beginning or an end of Trump, but I didn't expect to be emotional upon reading actual consequences.
posted by Carillon at 2:22 PM on May 30 [8 favorites]




Here's hoping that he flees the country. (sorry world)
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 2:22 PM on May 30 [18 favorites]


where the constitution is silent, or able to be misinterpreted for that matter, the current SCOTUS majority determines what is allowed, and not.
posted by torokunai at 2:22 PM on May 30 [4 favorites]


"The constitution does not bar felons from running for office. ... He would not be able to pardon himself from any conviction, since it is a state crime."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 2:22 PM on May 30 [19 favorites]


"Sentencing date set for 11 July
Judge Juan Merchan has set sentencing for 11 July at 10am ET.


RNC is July 15-18th 🍿
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 2:27 PM on May 30 [17 favorites]




Since Google results are now fully in the "deep-fried-shit" phase of enshittification, anyone here know what a normal sentence for this kind of offense would be? You know, for us shitmunchers who aren't part of the oligarchy, at least.
posted by tclark at 2:28 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


When I saw the post my stomach sunk. but some justice at last. Thank you jury.
posted by bluesky43 at 2:28 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


Go out and buy a newspaper tomorrow. Save it for your children.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 2:30 PM on May 30 [15 favorites]


Since Google results are now fully in the "deep-fried-shit" phase of enshittification, anyone here know what a normal sentence for this kind of offense would be? You know, for us shitmunchers who aren't part of the oligarcy, at least.

A negligible fine. Technically there is the possibility of a jail sentence, but it would be extraordinarily unusual.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 2:30 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


Is he allowed to vote in Florida?

What sort of crime would it be if he did?
posted by clawsoon at 2:30 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


Of the two likely possible outcomes I guess it was the best one but I don't predict this changing the voting patterns of anyone who was already going to vote for him and I doubt he'll see anything like prison time.

But I'm learning to take my wins when I get them, however slight.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 2:32 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


Is he allowed to vote in Florida?

What sort of crime would it be if he did?


Not sure when he'd lose his voting rights but, ironically, it'd be a felony.
posted by nathan_teske at 2:32 PM on May 30 [7 favorites]


"a class E felony in New York, the least serious category, and punishable by up to four years in prison.... But Trump is unlikely to be sentenced to prison if he is convicted, experts say."

But, “This is not a one-off, ‘Oops, I made a mistake on my business records,’ or even, a one-off scheme,” said Diana Florence, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. "I believe if convicted, a sentence of incarceration is warranted and justified,” Florence said. ...Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Stuart Meissner said he thinks prison time is more likely than not. "...they’re going to want to show that no one is above the law, and therefore he would likely sentence him to a term of incarceration,” he said. “I don’t think much, but I think it would be included just to show that point.”
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 2:33 PM on May 30 [18 favorites]


CONVICTED FELON DONALD TRUMP

Even better...

🎶CONVICTED FELON DONALD TRUMP, DOO DAH, DOO DAH🎶
posted by azpenguin at 2:35 PM on May 30 [74 favorites]


That red hat will look fine with an orange jumpsuit.
posted by wenestvedt at 2:35 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


It’s going to take a team of surgeons two hours to remove the smile from my face.
posted by Capt. Renault at 2:35 PM on May 30 [30 favorites]


so, I think it might be bigger if it is elevated to a felony? The sentence of "potentially 4 years" has been floating about.... The legal analysts I've been listening to have been saying it might be a sentence of house arrest, suspended, maybe with some public service?

I think if there weren't a presidential election going on, he might be subjected to house arrest. or... maybe a sentence is delivered that is delayed until after the election so he could be house-arrested if not elected? It's all very murky. Never in the world has this happened before.
posted by hippybear at 2:36 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]




Since Google results are now fully in the "deep-fried-shit" phase of enshittification, anyone here know what a normal sentence for this kind of offense would be? You know, for us shitmunchers who aren't part of the oligarcy, at least.

Oh, and he is required to report to his parole officer on a regular basis. If he doesn’t, we could end up with someone under house arrest in the White House.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 2:36 PM on May 30 [7 favorites]


Wow. Never expected this.

Maybe the rule of law means something?

We shall see what happens next.

"Dancing, dancing in the Streets"
posted by Windopaene at 2:36 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


Make Asshole Guilty Again.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 2:36 PM on May 30 [20 favorites]


but I don't predict this changing the voting patterns of anyone who was already going to vote for him
Roughly 1 in 6 voters (17%) said a guilty verdict would make them less likely to vote for Trump. That was true of a quarter of nonwhites and 1 in 5 voters who make less than $50,000 a year and those under 45.
posted by clawsoon at 2:37 PM on May 30 [38 favorites]


It’s going to take a team of surgeons two hours to remove the smile from my face.
posted by Capt. Renault


I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find you're pleased about this.
posted by hippybear at 2:37 PM on May 30 [30 favorites]


From the NYT:

The conviction of Donald Trump on Thursday is just the latest step in his legal odyssey in New York’s court system. The judge, Juan M. Merchan, set Mr. Trump’s sentencing for July 11. He could be sentenced to as much as four years behind bars, or probation.

Mr. Trump has already indicated that he plans to appeal, after months of criticizing the case and attacking the Manhattan district attorney, who brought it, and Justice Merchan, who presided over his trial.
posted by bluesky43 at 2:37 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


I'm so looking forward to KEXP's morning show tomorrow.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 2:38 PM on May 30 [10 favorites]


It's a curious thing - on the one hand, justice truly has been served: in that he was tried by a jury of his peers. On the other, he likely won't suffer any actual penalty (unlike Cohen and Weisselberg.) On the third hand, I don't give a fuck because he is now, Convicted Felon Donald Trump. It should have happened years ago (literally 40-odd years ago, during the building of Trump tower), but this'll do.

I'm heartened by this.
posted by From Bklyn at 2:38 PM on May 30 [19 favorites]


This is the weakest of the four cases. And this grinch's small heart grew three sizes that day.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 2:39 PM on May 30 [42 favorites]


ahem ahem LOCK HIM UP LOCK HIM UP LOCK HIM UP ahem ahem
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 2:39 PM on May 30 [19 favorites]


on FOXNEWS " Trump blasts 'rigged, disgraceful trial' after jury convicts him of all 34 counts"
posted by tarantula at 2:39 PM on May 30 [9 favorites]


A good day. The Former Guy is now The Felon Guy. Cheers, all!
posted by May Kasahara at 2:40 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


More detail on whether this will prevent him from voting. He probably would still be able to vote, but the law is not 100% clear.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 2:41 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]


"You can't even say law and order."
-convicted felon Donald J Trump during presidential debates

"Aw shut up, man."
-President Joe Biden
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 2:41 PM on May 30 [26 favorites]


on NYPOST.COM (!)


GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS


Donald Trump convicted on 34 felony counts for falsifying business records in historic Manhattan hush money case

Donald Trump is now the first ex-US president to be convicted on criminal charges

Donald Trump is a convicted felon.
posted by lalochezia at 2:41 PM on May 30 [9 favorites]


It's down to sentencing, but I hope the judge makes him run for office from a prison cell.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:41 PM on May 30 [8 favorites]




Y’know, there was a time - not that long ago, really - when the headline “Donald Trump convicted of falsifying business records in hush money scheme”, currently featured on CNN, would have surprised exactly no one and gone entirely unremarked in most circles.

Now, it’s both world news and a tiny sliver of hope that the dream of America is not quite dead.
posted by nickmark at 2:42 PM on May 30 [23 favorites]


"Does this mean he can't run for president again?"

No, he can still run. Eugene Debbs ran for President from prison.
posted by Jacqueline at 2:42 PM on May 30 [18 favorites]


Roughly 1 in 6 voters (17%) said a guilty verdict would make them less likely to vote for Trump. That was true of a quarter of nonwhites and 1 in 5 voters who make less than $50,000 a year and those under 45.

I hate to bring the horse race into this but 1. It's absolutely insane that 83% of voters apparently don't think being convicted of a felony should, at the very very least, cast significant doubt on a candidate's fitness for the presidency and 2. My guess is a lot of the folks who say a guilty verdict would make them less likely to vote for Trump weren't gonna vote for him anyway. We'll see if that changes now that the hypothetical has become reality.
posted by Method Man at 2:44 PM on May 30 [13 favorites]


"Donald Trump is a felon. He joins his campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, national security advisor, foreign policy advisor, political consultant, and personal lawyer as felons." (link to Twitter/X/Muskworld)
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 2:44 PM on May 30 [87 favorites]




Congratulations Donald, you finally got the popular vote.
posted by adept256 at 2:44 PM on May 30 [15 favorites]


"average U.S. President has 0.74 felony convictions" factoid actualy just statistical error. average U.S. President has 0 felony convictions. Felonies Georg, who lives in Mar-a-Lago & commits felonies constantly, is an outlier adn should not have been counted
posted by Jacqueline at 2:44 PM on May 30 [114 favorites]


A good day. Cheers, all!

A good day, indeed. America is not well. But with the help of some good, brave people in the right place and at the right time, we may get through this and put this cretin and his cretinous followers in the rearview mirror.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:46 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


Anyone else picturing Mark Slackmeyer right about now?

[for those who don't get the reference, the Doonesbury comic strip on May 29, 1973 is famous for the character opining "Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!"]
posted by cheshyre at 2:49 PM on May 30 [52 favorites]


According to Jake Tapper, Florida follows the state where the conviction happened as to whether a felon can vote. Since NY allows felons to vote, he’ll be able to vote in Florida.
posted by girlmightlive at 2:49 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


And I thought the high point of today was going to be successfully figuring out why we moved the windows server across the hall, and all of a sudden nobody can see their F: drive (or the server). (It was DNS. It's always DNS)
posted by mikelieman at 2:50 PM on May 30 [22 favorites]


From everything I've read, an amazing job by the judge. There were so many chances for this to go off the rails.
posted by mark k at 2:51 PM on May 30 [22 favorites]


If he shows up for his debates with Biden, he's going to lose his fucking shit on live TV.
posted by essexjan at 2:54 PM on May 30 [43 favorites]


NYT: Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, will hold a news conference at 6:30 to discuss the verdict.
posted by bluesky43 at 2:54 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


To everyone thinking this means nothing - including myself:

Donald Trump does not look happy. He is clearly not having a good day. If this truly meant nothing he'd be nonchalant. This event does not mean everything. It means something. And that something is not good for Donald Trump.
posted by Tomorrowful at 2:55 PM on May 30 [108 favorites]


Anyone else picturing Mark Slackmeyer right about now?

I posted that panel as my Facebook status the second the verdicts were being read.

I texted my roommate (who's still at work) that announcement of "GUILTY ON ALL 34 COUNTS". He texted back a screenshot of someone on Twitter talking about how people in New York are leaning out of their apartments and cars and shouting "Guilty!" at each other. A part of me wants to go out tonight, as there will be lively goings-on - but a part of me wants to stay inside because I feel like Some Shit Might Go Down as well.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:57 PM on May 30 [48 favorites]


Yeah, no matter what else happens, no matter if he appeals all the way to SCOTUS and gets his flunkies to bail him out. Today is a very, very bad day for Donald Trump. He will be deeply unhappy.

And that in and of itself is reason to celebrate.
posted by mrjohnmuller at 2:57 PM on May 30 [32 favorites]


Surely this...

But, that being said, this is a great day in America.
posted by Windopaene at 2:58 PM on May 30 [4 favorites]


Here's hoping that he flees the country. (sorry world)
If he takes Elon with him, I'll help with the crowdfunding.
posted by joeyh at 2:58 PM on May 30 [20 favorites]


I'm also worried about the safety of the jurors. This article from today gets into it a bit.
unlike another recent Trump case, their identifies were anonymous only to the public. Their names were shared with the prosecutor and Trump’s lawyers.
posted by Nelson at 3:01 PM on May 30 [13 favorites]


Florida Man Found Guilty on 34 Counts of Election Meddling
posted by chromecow at 3:01 PM on May 30 [60 favorites]


🎶CONVICTED FELON DONALD TRUMP, DOO DAH, DOO DAH🎶

CAPS LOCK DAY IS EARLY

OR LATE!
posted by itsatextfile at 3:03 PM on May 30 [7 favorites]


there's nothing in the Constitution that says convicted felons can't run for President.

Ironically though he’s no longer allowed to play basketball.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 3:03 PM on May 30 [42 favorites]


According to Jake Tapper, Florida follows the state where the conviction happened as to whether a felon can vote. Since NY allows felons to vote, he’ll be able to vote in Florida.

I recall there was a referendum on this, and Florida voted for felons to get the vote. But this was never implemented. They just didn't do it. DeSantis even sent out goons to arrest felons who voted and published the video. Those people are off the hook btw, they did nothing wrong. Ron just wanted to show brown people (they were all brown, natch) getting arrested for voting.

Watch how fast they move now, to make sure this fucking guy is allowed to vote. Suddenly the civil rights of felons is an emergency very urgent issue that cannot be ignored any longer!

You know what would be funny? They finally honor the wish of the voters, allow convicts to vote - just to service one Donald - and that changes the math enough to flip the state. It would be their own fault.
posted by adept256 at 3:04 PM on May 30 [62 favorites]


Fuck this guy. But. Felons should be able to vote. Just saying.
posted by seanmpuckett at 3:06 PM on May 30 [86 favorites]


This calls for 10 hours of Yub Nub, according to Mefi's Own joeyh
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 3:06 PM on May 30 [13 favorites]


🙌
posted by Winnie the Proust at 3:07 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]


He is going to get embarrassed in the debates. No audience. Mics can be cut. Biden is going to bait him into losing his shit in front of millions of people. It’s going to be extraordinary.

No way he shows up. Calling it now.
posted by jasondigitized at 3:07 PM on May 30 [38 favorites]


Waiting for the satirical NYT pitchbot to post "Trump Convicted on 34 Counts - Here's Why That's Bad News for Democrats."

I posted that panel as my Facebook status the second the verdicts were being read.

Me too. I hope it becomes a tradition.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:08 PM on May 30 [26 favorites]


Evan Hurst of Wonkette covered the verdict and included a tweet from Franklin Graham posted yesterday, asking for people to join him in praying for former President Trump, and in praying that “God‘s will be done.”

Hurst’s response: “Prayer answered, motherfucker.”

It’s after midnight here and I have no idea how I’m gonna get to sleep because I’m feeling so wound up and giddy. I know we have not reached the promised land, but things have been so shitty for so long and continue to be that this guilty verdict feels like a shining moment to be savored however briefly.
posted by Bella Donna at 3:09 PM on May 30 [43 favorites]


Jumping to the end (hey, I was napping because of headache) to share that I am feasting on avocado toast and California sparkling Rosé. Now, back to read both threads.
posted by theBigRedKittyPurrs at 3:09 PM on May 30 [7 favorites]


Hypothetically speaking, even if they don't give him prison time, wouldn't a four year house arrest sentence make it at least hilariously awkward and inconvenient for him to try to hold office?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:09 PM on May 30 [28 favorites]


If he did get house arrest, and if I were Biden I'd stage all kinds of "debates," just to get the opportunity to say variations on "Of course, dipshit can't be here, because he's a convicted felon, stuck in his living room with an ankle bracelet."
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:11 PM on May 30 [22 favorites]


Waiting for the satirical NYT pitchbot to post "Trump Convicted on 34 Counts - Here's Why That's Bad News for Democrats."

NYT Pitchbot went with: "I have never been a supporter of Donald Trump, but if New York governor Kathy Hochul does not pardon him within 24 hours, I will have no choice but to vote for him a third time."
posted by clawsoon at 3:11 PM on May 30 [69 favorites]


I’m genuinely surprised.

I’m trying to imagine how conversations with my husband’s conservative uncle are going to go on this topic…
posted by samthemander at 3:12 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


Every tiny puncture in the Big Man image is a reason for hope. Feeling very happy to have 34.
posted by Ryvar at 3:12 PM on May 30 [10 favorites]


wouldn't a four year house arrest sentence make it at least hilariously awkward and inconvenient for him to try to hold office?

Home Alone 3
posted by adept256 at 3:12 PM on May 30 [29 favorites]


I want to see That Fucking Guy in an ankle monitor.
posted by Bella Donna at 3:13 PM on May 30 [9 favorites]


There was a rave in my street today, but I have COVID-19, so I couldn't go down and dance.
Still, this gives some hope for humanity. Maybe it will make at least some people snap out of it.
posted by mumimor at 3:13 PM on May 30 [14 favorites]


I suppose I shouldn't mention Rule 34, but I'm unable to help myself.
posted by hippybear at 3:13 PM on May 30 [29 favorites]


The Florida felon-voting situation is complicated but my best guess is Trump will be able to vote but may have to work a little bit at it. Being rich and white helps a lot but also I think Florida law is now on his side.

This recent Brennan Center article has more info. In 2018 Floridians voted to allow felons to vote. Right after that the Republicans in Florida passed a new law saying maybe felons could vote but only after paying off all their nominal court debts. (Ie, pay-to-vote.) Also they put in a bunch of obfuscation for people to know whether they were now eligible to vote and made a few high-profile arrests of people who were voting in good faith, just to scare off anyone else.

I'm not clear on whether Florida's exclusions apply only for folks convicted of felonies in Florida. This site says "A felony conviction in another state makes a person ineligible to vote in Florida only if the conviction would make the person ineligible to vote in the state where the person was convicted." I believe in New York felons can vote on release from incarceration. Trump is likely to be in limbo in November: convicted but pending appeal. I don't know for sure how that'd affect his Florida voting status.
posted by Nelson at 3:14 PM on May 30 [9 favorites]


NYT Pitchbot went with: "I have never been a supporter of Donald Trump, but if New York governor Kathy Hochul does not pardon him within 24 hours, I will have no choice but to vote for him a third time."

NYT Pitchbot is just three David Brooks in a trenchcoact.
posted by East14thTaco at 3:14 PM on May 30 [42 favorites]


I recall there was a referendum on this, and Florida voted for felons to get the vote. But this was never implemented. They just didn't do it.

Off the top of my head after the referendum passed the FL state legislature finagled the law so that all felons had to have all their debts and fines associated with their cases paid off before they could vote, and this was the supposed excuse for arresting them for voting - although many of them didn't even know they had outstanding debts.
posted by soundguy99 at 3:14 PM on May 30 [8 favorites]






I’m trying to imagine how conversations with my husband’s conservative uncle are going to go on this topic…

Based on the Fox News comments section, this is the darkest day for democracy, and everyone who loves democracy will see that and vote for Trump.
posted by clawsoon at 3:15 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


NYT Pitchbot: "Donald Trump to join Harvard's Institute of Politics"
posted by mazola at 3:15 PM on May 30 [27 favorites]


From December 2023: Nearly a Quarter of Trump Voters Say He Shouldn’t Be Nominated if Convicted. I have my doubts that this number was real even in December, much less now, but it is a hopeful measure that maybe this conviction will influence some voters.
posted by Nelson at 3:16 PM on May 30 [24 favorites]


I really hope that is true - earlier I posted this on the The Apprentice jerk's accounting of the felon.

As has happened before, none of this will make any difference to Trump supporters. The guy whose house I have to pass when I go to the grocery store has had a Trump 2024 sign up since 2020. Yesterday it was changed to a Trump Wanted sign with a pic of a menacing looking Trump (it's cool Trump is being tried and even better if he's convicted). Nothing matters.
posted by bluesky43 at 3:18 PM on May 30 [4 favorites]


Does this conviction have any bearing on the other trials?
posted by I-Write-Essays at 3:18 PM on May 30


10 hours of Yub Nub

this is a masterful troll that calls for its own prison sentence
posted by phooky at 3:19 PM on May 30 [9 favorites]


Conviced felon ex-president Donald Trump

Felonious Trump
posted by chavenet at 3:21 PM on May 30 [35 favorites]




you know when a dog chases cars for so long and then one day what would happen if the dog catches the car?

that car is our Surely This

I can't believe it
posted by elkevelvet at 3:21 PM on May 30 [16 favorites]


Holy shit! I missed the news as it was announced because my wife and I went for a walk and I made a point of leaving my phone at home…which is also what happened the night the Rob Ford Gawker story broke.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:22 PM on May 30 [7 favorites]


Nearly a quarter of Trump voters will say they never said that, or it doesn't count because it's just "lawfare," or whatever other excuse they need to continue worshipping their fascist hero.

I'm glad he was convicted because it shows that even Trump is not above the law. I'm glad he's having a bad day and I hope he has many more bad days to come. But I'm not feeling celebratory: It's now a mainstream political opinion that his trial and conviction are part of a conspiracy by the Biden administration. A whole segment of our population, and their elected representatives, believes in Trump with a religious fervor that will reject and reshape any facts that challenge that belief. It's a dark and hateful place to be in, as a country.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 3:22 PM on May 30 [33 favorites]


May 30 shall henceforth be known as Stormy Daniels Day
posted by gottabefunky at 3:22 PM on May 30 [39 favorites]


I would love, love, love to see this:

At the presentence interview, a psychologist or social worker working for the probation department may also talk to Mr. Trump, during which time the defendant can “try to make a good impression and explain why he or she deserves a lighter punishment,” according to the New York State Unified Court System.
posted by doctornemo at 3:23 PM on May 30 [33 favorites]


I'm going to wait on celebrating in the streets for Trump to lose the election and then also all of his appeals.
posted by grumpybear69 at 3:24 PM on May 30 [8 favorites]


According to CNN, the note from the jury saying they had a verdict was timestamped 4:20 pm.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:24 PM on May 30 [25 favorites]


posted on MSNBC just now by Jarvis DeBerry

While most Republicans were tripping over themselves to condemn anybody but Trump for his conviction of 34 felonies Thursday, Republican Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama took a surprising alternative. He showed respect for the jurors and said Republicans need to pick a different nominee with “good character” and “BEAT THE STEW OUT OF BIDEN!”


I can't imagine that will happen, but I'm amazed ANY Republican, much less Mo Brooks, is suggesting they need a new nominee.
posted by pjsky at 3:25 PM on May 30 [54 favorites]


Let us have this moment yt .

Here's another one....
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:27 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


mebbe the kayfabe magic of the past ~10 years is wearing off now
posted by torokunai at 3:27 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


Has anyone checked to see how NYC is doing? I'm thinking full city bacchanalia! (And should have stayed one more days for it.)
posted by snortasprocket at 3:27 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]


Well, I'm glad for the outcome, although it suddenly feels like a good night to stay off the roads here in Texas.
posted by mykescipark at 3:28 PM on May 30 [7 favorites]


The Maine Dem. Convention starts tomorrow, thru Saturday. I really, really wish I had a badge maker. I'll print out 2 images, anyway, the Doonesbury will fit in a badge holder.
posted by theora55 at 3:28 PM on May 30 [4 favorites]


There seems to be a certain contingent of Republican or Independent voters who in theory prefer Trump over Biden, but are worried that if Trump is mired in legal issues he'll be unable to effectively do the job. These are not terribly principled people, but I guess the hope is that there is enough of them to impact the outcome of the election.
posted by coffeecat at 3:30 PM on May 30 [7 favorites]


I really, really wish I had a badge maker.

Fedex Office or Staples or Office Depot, if you're near to any of those places, might have a print shop that could help you out. I'm often surprised by what I could get printed at such places.
posted by hippybear at 3:30 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


That sound you hear is the Federal Witness Protection Program hastily opening 12 new case files
posted by gottabefunky at 3:30 PM on May 30 [20 favorites]


Seen on Mastodon: "Donald trump has been convicted of 34 felonies, which is actually the maximum number of felonies a person can be convicted of at one time. Search 'donald trump rule 34' for more info"

(Note, do not actually search that.)
posted by biogeo at 3:31 PM on May 30 [75 favorites]


mature felonious little plans, win felonious prizes
posted by scruss at 3:31 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


NYT: Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, will hold a news conference at 6:30 to discuss the verdict.

For maximum points it should be held at Four Seasons Total Landscaping
posted by chavenet at 3:31 PM on May 30 [44 favorites]


Last day of the fiscal year at my company. This feels like an unexpected year end bonus.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 3:31 PM on May 30 [4 favorites]


Has anyone checked to see how NYC is doing? I'm thinking full city bacchanalia!

Not yet? Some shouting out of windows, but I haven't heard of any mass gatherings yet.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:31 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


I guess the hope is that there is enough of them to impact the outcome of the election.

There are probably 3 or 4 different little contingent of Trump voters who have people likely to move away from Trump after these convictions. If 1% of those move in the correct states, he loses. If 3% of those leave regardless of which states, he loses. It won't take much. Just a couple of people out of every hundred to say "nah".
posted by hippybear at 3:33 PM on May 30 [23 favorites]


Today is the perfect day for E. Jean Carroll to file for redress regarding Trump's recent violations for calling her a liar again.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 3:33 PM on May 30 [36 favorites]


I suppose I shouldn't mention Rule 34, but I'm unable to help myself.

Dude.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 3:34 PM on May 30 [7 favorites]


> At the presentience interview...
posted by I-Write-Essays at 3:35 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


I’m really warming to the house arrest concept.
posted by jasondigitized at 3:36 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


Hey The Card Cheat, can you maybe leave your phone at home while going for walks more frequently? A few more trials are coming up and it would be awesome if you missed good news about those verdicts as well. I mean, maybe you’re the reason we got those verdicts!
posted by Bella Donna at 3:36 PM on May 30 [50 favorites]


have a Dark 'n Stormy Daniels, on me!
posted by chavenet at 3:39 PM on May 30 [8 favorites]


(Apparently my previous comment was my 3400'th on the Blue.)
posted by biogeo at 3:41 PM on May 30 [16 favorites]


I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the Thomas and Alito households.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 3:42 PM on May 30 [8 favorites]


I'd love to be a fly on the Thomas and Alito corpses.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:43 PM on May 30 [110 favorites]


"current headline font-size values" joshua stein on mastodon

huffington post wins at 250
posted by joeyh at 3:43 PM on May 30 [16 favorites]


Good.
posted by eclectist at 3:43 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]


You can sing "Donald Trump, Convicted Felon" to the tune of "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles."
posted by HeroZero at 3:44 PM on May 30 [38 favorites]


You can sing "Donald Trump, Convicted Felon" to the tune of "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles."

Also works for the first phrase of "Ode to Joy".
posted by clawsoon at 3:46 PM on May 30 [33 favorites]


Mah Na Mah Na, Doot Dooo Dee Doo Doo

It's Donald Trump, Conviiiicted Felon
posted by hippybear at 3:48 PM on May 30 [14 favorites]


Nothing matters

One way this won't matter is if both Trump supporters and opponents start agree it doesn't matter.

There are more than enough marginally engaged voters out there to swing the election. They'll be seeing the six column headlines saying Trump convicted and wondering if it's a big deal. They'll take the cue from a lot of the reactions out there. I still think one aspect of the Trump era is the fact that, since Trump was never convicted of anything, these voters viewed people screaming about his obvious (to us) levels of corruption were just playing politics. You can call anyone corrupt, if it were really that bad there'd be legal action!

But if the overall reaction is that this isn't news, then it will start looking like a technicality. It is a big deal and should be treated as one.
posted by mark k at 3:48 PM on May 30 [62 favorites]


There seems to be a certain contingent of Republican or Independent voters who in theory prefer Trump over Biden, but are worried that if Trump is mired in legal issues he'll be unable to effectively do the job. These are not terribly principled people, but I guess the hope is that there is enough of them to impact the outcome of the election.

On a similar note, there will be a certain subset of Trumpoids who will be rejoicing right now, claiming that this OBVIOUS SHAM TRIAL ending like this JUST WON DONALD TRUMP THE ELECTION because now all Americans will CLEARLY SEE how RIGGED it all was and how ELECTION INTERFERENCE yadda yadda.

Do not fall for this for a microsecond.

There is not one person on this planet who will look at this verdict and think "the Deep State is real, the trial was rigged, the election interference is obvious, and now I have to vote for Trump" who was not 120% in the tank for Trump in both 2016 and 2020.

Not one. Anyone who says otherwise is engaging in deeply wishful thinking. There are plenty of other reasons to consider voting decisions in ways that may or may not contribute to Trump's election, and myself and many others are merrily deep-shitting-up a different thread concerning those, but THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
posted by delfin at 3:49 PM on May 30 [43 favorites]


Alvin Bragg beginning his remarks now, thanking the jurists.
posted by bluesky43 at 3:50 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


You can sing "Donald Trump, Convicted Felon" to the tune of "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles."

𝅘𝅥𝅮 Donald Trump, Convicted Felon
𝅘𝅥𝅮 Mar-a-lago jail cell, white power!
posted by adept256 at 3:51 PM on May 30 [4 favorites]


Seperate that man from his cellphone for 24hrs and he’ll go into a coma.

Not that I am against this.
posted by Artw at 3:51 PM on May 30 [9 favorites]


You can sing "Donald Trump, Convicted Felon" to the tune of "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles."

You can also replace "Heroes in a half shell/Turtle Power!" with "Send his ass to Rikers/Let him die there!"
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:51 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


Stormy Daniels thank you for your courage to testify!
posted by Arctostaphylos at 3:53 PM on May 30 [39 favorites]


have a Dark 'n Stormy Daniels, on me!

You know what - you've just convinced me. There is a small vibey bar near me (I went there after watching OPPENHEIMER to decompress) and I am POSITIVE that there will be a bit of a festive mood there tonight. I'm going to go have a quick drink to celebrate a bit.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:54 PM on May 30 [21 favorites]


Oh, and Elon took a hit today, too.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 3:56 PM on May 30 [17 favorites]


HALLELUJAH
posted by jokeefe at 3:57 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]


NYT:I asked Alvin Bragg how he feels having responded to so much criticism of so many of his decisions related to the Trump investigation, and eventually the Trump case.

“I did my job,” he says. “Our job is to follow the facts without fear or favor, and that’s what we did here.” He takes a moment. “I did my job, we did our jobs.” He says that there are many voices out there, “but the only voice that matters is the voice of the jury, and the jury has spoken.”
posted by bluesky43 at 3:57 PM on May 30 [18 favorites]


I hope the jurors' identities aren't made public. I know their identities are known to the legal teams, but it would be truly terrible for those courageous people if their anonymity is breached.
posted by essexjan at 3:58 PM on May 30 [18 favorites]


I am POSITIVE that there will be a bit of a festive mood there tonight

The local Irish pub burned a Trump shaped piñata the day Trump left office. I may go over there just to see what they’re up to.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 3:58 PM on May 30 [30 favorites]


Orange is the new Orange
posted by Sphinx at 3:58 PM on May 30 [48 favorites]


For maximum points it should be held at Four Seasons Total Landscaping

It's funny that you mention that...
posted by delfin at 3:58 PM on May 30 [22 favorites]


Oh, and Elon took a hit today, too.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 3:56 PM on May 30 [1 favorite +] [⚑]

Musk can’t avoid testifying in SEC probe of Twitter buyout by playing victim
Class action alleges secret Twitter stock scheme ahead of Musk's SEC testimony.

hahahahaha!!!!!
posted by bluesky43 at 3:58 PM on May 30 [8 favorites]


"average U.S. President has 0.74 felony convictions" factoid actualy just statistical error. average U.S. President has 0 felony convictions. Felonies Georg, who lives in Mar-a-Lago & commits felonies constantly, is an outlier adn should not have been counted

Oh god this is not how statistics works!!!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:59 PM on May 30 [7 favorites]


"There are probably 3 or 4 different little contingent of Trump voters who have people likely to move away from Trump after these convictions. If 1% of those move in the correct states, he loses. If 3% of those leave regardless of which states, he loses."

He gave a speech at the Libertarian Party national convention last weekend -- the MAGAts who engineered a hostile takeover of the LP in 2022 invited him -- and when the actual Libertarians started booing him, he shot back that the LP can keep getting their 3% if they don't want to win.

Seems weird that he knew that 3% statistic off the top of his head. Almost like his campaign team has drilled it into his head how important it was to try to win over some of the 3% who always vote Libertarian.
posted by Jacqueline at 3:59 PM on May 30 [16 favorites]


A couple years ago I stumbled upon this online candle shop called "That Gay Guy Candle Company" - he makes scented candles, but the real appeal is that he puts politically-opinionated labels on them (you can choose whatever scent you want). I got something with the label "Trump fucked around and Tish James is helping him find out" or something.

He just sent out an e-blast that he has added three new candle messages.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:59 PM on May 30 [20 favorites]


"Oh god this is not how statistics works!!!"

Are you unfamiliar with Spiders Georg?
posted by Jacqueline at 4:01 PM on May 30 [25 favorites]


He gave a speech at the Libertarian Party national convention last weekend -- the MAGAts who engineered a hostile takeover of the LP in 2022 invited him -- and when the actual Libertarians started booing him, he shot back that the LP can keep getting their 3% if they don't want to win.

He couldn’t even win them over by promising them leniency on sex crimes.
posted by Artw at 4:01 PM on May 30 [9 favorites]


I will enjoy this moment and let the problems in our politics and concerns about the election be a problem for the morrow.
posted by interogative mood at 4:01 PM on May 30 [10 favorites]


Madison McFerrin on TikTok with some mood music for this moment
posted by Pallas Athena at 4:02 PM on May 30 [13 favorites]


Now that he is a CONVICTED FELON I can only hope that this will prevent Trump from getting Security Briefings that are supposed to start soon. Good god, there has to be a way to prevent that from happening.
posted by pjsky at 4:03 PM on May 30 [16 favorites]


The sentence for this is 1-4 years, so it's almost guaranteed that he'll not go to prison for this. That's fine with me, actually. The vote tampering stuff, though--he really needs some jail time for that.
posted by zardoz at 4:04 PM on May 30 [10 favorites]


> But I'm not feeling celebratory: It's now a mainstream political opinion that his trial and conviction are part of a conspiracy by the Biden administration. A whole segment of our population, and their elected representatives, believes in Trump with a religious fervor that will reject and reshape any facts that challenge that belief.

yeah. it'll be interesting to see if there's any significant change in the polls over the next few weeks. there have been a few polls earlier this year asking voters how they would react in the hypothetical event that Trump were convicted of a crime. some small fraction of people said they would no longer support him. but what people say they will do before the event vs what they actually do when it happens can often be quite different.

i doubt anyone in this comment thread has changed their opinion of trump based on this verdict. i am surprised that the jury arrived at a guilty verdict but the outcome doesn't change my perception of trump.

similarly, there are pro-trump voters who are keenly aware that trump is imperfect but they support him anyway as they see him as the means to an end. i heard a pro-trump voter quoted as saying something along the lines of "when you need to hire a rat catcher, you're not concerned if the rat catcher is ugly". so from that perspective, if you need to hire a rat catcher, maybe you're also not concerned if the rat catcher was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in new york, provided they get in there and get the job done.

that said, not all trump supporters will think the same way so it'll be interesting to see how the polls oscillate.
posted by are-coral-made at 4:04 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


I suppose I shouldn't mention Rule 34, but I'm unable to help myself.
No doubt Chuck Tingle is gleefully typing out a short story entitled Pounded in the Butt By My 34 Count Felony Conviction.
posted by The Ardship of Cambry at 4:05 PM on May 30 [46 favorites]


You can sing "Donald Trump, Convicted Felon" to the tune of "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles."

Also works for the first phrase of "Ode to Joy".


And "Oh, My Darling Clementine".
posted by Epixonti at 4:06 PM on May 30 [7 favorites]


yeah. it'll be interesting to see if there's any significant change in the polls over the next few weeks.

If there are, the NYT won't report them properly.
posted by Melismata at 4:06 PM on May 30 [8 favorites]


No way he shows up. Calling it now.

Trump always, always, always thinks he can talk his way out of a situation. He'll show up.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:07 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


(He was already a felon, wasn't he? The conviction in the E. Jean Carroll case was sexual abuse. Is that not a felony?)
posted by Pallas Athena at 4:09 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


Lock him up!

(been waiting for so long....)
posted by WaterAndPixels at 4:11 PM on May 30


"average U.S. President has 0.74 felony convictions" factoid actualy just statistical error. average U.S. President has 0 felony convictions. Felonies Georg, who lives in Mar-a-Lago & commits felonies constantly, is an outlier adn should not have been counted

Oh god this is not how statistics works!!!
posted by MisantropicPainforest


Actually, removing outliers is statistics. And that the felon is an outlier is exactly the point here.
posted by bluesky43 at 4:11 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


"He was already a felon, wasn't he? The conviction in the E. Jean Carroll case was sexual abuse. Is that not a felony?"

That was a civil trial, not a criminal one.
posted by Jacqueline at 4:12 PM on May 30 [22 favorites]


(He was already a felon, wasn't he? The conviction in the E. Jean Carroll case was sexual abuse. Is that not a felony?)

It was a civil case, not a criminal case.
posted by axiom at 4:12 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


(He was already a felon, wasn't he? The conviction in the E. Jean Carroll case was sexual abuse. Is that not a felony?)

That was a civil judgement, not a prosecution.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:12 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


(Weirdly, that one was a civil trial, so astronomical judgements against him notwithstanding, this is his first criminal conviction)
posted by itsatextfile at 4:13 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


(He was already a felon, wasn't he? The conviction in the E. Jean Carroll case was sexual abuse. Is that not a felony?)

That was a civil suit. Criminal penalties did not apply.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 4:13 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


Anyone else want to chime in?
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 4:14 PM on May 30 [59 favorites]


if he gets house arrest will he be subject to random drug and alcohol testing?
posted by logicpunk at 4:14 PM on May 30 [23 favorites]


There is not one person on this planet who will look at this verdict and think "the Deep State is real, the trial was rigged, the election interference is obvious, and now I have to vote for Trump" who was not 120% in the tank for Trump in both 2016 and 2020.

There is going to be spinning like we ain't never seen until the election on what this conviction means, and I for one don't care to predict which spin will succeed in the mind of this independent voter at a quaint diner in Ohio.
posted by clawsoon at 4:14 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


Each count carries a 4 year penalty. He’s now technically a multiple offender with no credits for acceptance of responsibility for his crimes. Instead he’s shown contempt to the court, the judge, the jury and the prosecutor. I suspect he will get at least as much time as Cohen and Weiselberg. Probably a year in prison and several years probation.
posted by interogative mood at 4:18 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


I can’t see him getting prison due to the logistical difficulties. If there is detainment, I suspect it will be house arrest.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 4:20 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


Sentencing date set for 11 July

"What would you think of a Slurpee promotion?" - 7/11 boardroom right now
posted by clawsoon at 4:21 PM on May 30 [43 favorites]


He’s now technically a multiple offender with no credits for acceptance of responsibility for his crimes.

What effect would this have on potential sentences in his three upcoming cases?
posted by cmyk at 4:23 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


Hrm. Maybe a clear slurpee cup with jail bars printed on it and an orange colored flavor to put in it?
posted by hippybear at 4:23 PM on May 30 [14 favorites]


Seeing as Trump’s actions and statements over the course of his life (I mean, for anyone who wants to comb through it, please, help yourself), are pretty much all limited to “things that help me, good, things that hinder me, bad,” with almost no ability to reflect on the impact of those things on others, I’m seeing the potential for an amazing shift:

As a convicted felon, Trump now has to check “yes” on any form that asks if he’s ever been convicted of a felony, and while it’s highly unlikely that he’d ever face any real difficulty for it, there are a ton of those forms, impacting all sorts of different parts of American life. Anytime he has to actual check one of those “yes” boxes, it will infuriate him because this thing that affects a ridiculous percentage of Americans, making their lives inordinately different, continuing to hound and punish them long after having served their sentence, that thing now affects him.

Now that it affects him, now that it hinders him, he will almost certainly rail against the injustice of it. And that’s absolutely beautiful. I look forward to the presumptive GOP nominee for president railing about the unfairness of laws that continue to punish felons even after they’ve completed their sentencing. I, for one, am really hoping that Trump manages to fuck this up so badly that people start to talk about reforming this part of the system, given how historically racial discrimination has been a part of deciding who gets felonies vs. who gets misdemeanors.

I don’t know about you, but I’m excited to hear the new, very left wing criminal justice reform MAGA talking points.
posted by Ghidorah at 4:25 PM on May 30 [58 favorites]


I've long envisioned an event like this to be promptly followed by a fatal heart attack on a golden toilet.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 4:27 PM on May 30 [27 favorites]


I legit did not think this would happen, i thought for sure there would be a hung jury. damn, it has become impossible to expect the correct thing actually happening in our current system of justice. But I'm also scared, a bit, of the backlash. Yet another rubicon crossing, norm shattered, it's so exhausting to have no idea what the next week will bring.
posted by dis_integration at 4:27 PM on May 30 [12 favorites]


Do we have a playlist for this event, like when Biden won?
posted by NotLost at 4:28 PM on May 30 [4 favorites]


Well I had a friend named Ramblin' Don. He used to steal, scandal and con. Thought he was the smartest guy around...
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:29 PM on May 30 [17 favorites]


The Daily Show @TheDailyShow
2h
Justice Alito has called for upside down American flags to be flown at half mast
posted by bluesky43 at 4:31 PM on May 30 [44 favorites]


Man, I step away from my phone for a couple of hours and all Heaven breaks loose.
posted by y2karl at 4:32 PM on May 30 [48 favorites]


Or, more simply

[trump voice] They’re calling it prison abolition, folks, complex—prison industrial complex, they’re calling it. Very disgusting, very sad [crowd boos] I’m the first person to say, perhaps that none of us are free until all of us are free, and you’ll be hearing it more and more
posted by Ghidorah at 4:32 PM on May 30 [30 favorites]


Do we have a playlist for this event, like when Biden won?
Do you prefer the original Bobby Fuller Four version or the Clash cover?
posted by Nerd of the North at 4:33 PM on May 30 [9 favorites]


There's a fight over the wikipedia page rn. On the current front page:
In a 2023 civil case, a jury found that Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll; in 2024, a New York state court found Trump liable for financial fraud. Trump is appealing both judgments. Trump was convicted in New York on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, in connection with hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels. He is facing 54 other felony counts in three other indictments: a federal prosecution in Florida related to his mishandling of classified documents; a federal prosecution in Washington, D.C., on charges of conspiracy and obstruction for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election; and a state prosecution in Georgia on racketeering and other felonies committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results.
These are facts. I'm reminded that there's a safe-space version of wikipedia called Conservapedia. It's as tragic as it sounds and emblematic of today's epistemic crisis.

Instead he’s shown contempt to the court, the judge, the jury and the prosecutor.

The judge had to forbid him from shit-talking his daughter. Experts have remarked that this isn't a regular thing. It certainly seems counter-productive. Your honor, before this trial even begins, I would like you to know that your daughter is a bitch. Interesting strategy, fucking with dad. We're going to find out how well that worked.
posted by adept256 at 4:34 PM on May 30 [11 favorites]


“In the Jailhouse Now” - The Soggy Bottom Boys (link: Apple Music)
posted by m@f at 4:34 PM on May 30 [12 favorites]


“Trump will have to first meet with a probation officers in coming days. The officer will put together a sentencing report for Merchan to use at sentencing in July, including details such as whether Trump shows any remorse.” (CBC)

Hahahaha
posted by mazola at 4:38 PM on May 30 [38 favorites]


There's a fight over the wikipedia page rn

On the history page:
infobox criminal: "This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. [...] Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal." Do not add this again without prior consensus.
posted by clawsoon at 4:40 PM on May 30 [10 favorites]


I was wrong in the first part of my prediction in the earlier thread this morning. I would gladly be wrong about the second part, but only time will tell.
posted by briank at 4:43 PM on May 30


I’m aware of all of the caveats, “yes, but”s, and other reasons why this isn’t over. But, goddamn it, I’m sure as hell going to enjoy this for a little while.
posted by mollweide at 4:44 PM on May 30 [7 favorites]


NYT pitchbot is having a field day:
The real felon in the Trump hush money trial? The 12 jurors.
by Jonathan Turley

New York Times Pitchbot
@DougJBalloon
Each of Trump's 34 convictions as a character from Game of Thrones.
by Chris Cillizza

New York Times Pitchbot
@DougJBalloon
Judge Merchan should sentence Trump to five years of hard labor—at Harvard’s Institute of Politics.
posted by bluesky43 at 4:44 PM on May 30 [15 favorites]


I can’t see him getting prison due to the logistical difficulties. If there is detainment, I suspect it will be house arrest.
Logistical issues are typically dealt with at an administrative level, I believe. For example, someone who's very ill can still be given a prison sentence, but allowed to serve it at home or in a hospital. I suppose it doesn't make a practical difference, but there does seem to be a little bit extra in being able to say, for example at a debate, undeniably: "He would be in prison right now, except for him being an ex-president".
posted by WaylandSmith at 4:45 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


Gillian Branstetter reminds us that Juror 2 got all his news from Truth Social and X. Which...is interesting, in light of the verdict.
posted by mittens at 4:46 PM on May 30 [31 favorites]


Can social media effluencers get out on work release?
posted by BrotherCaine at 4:47 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


World News Tonight with David Muir reported to the people still living in the 20th century here in the Atlanta 'burbs that this might be good for Trump in the sense he's receiving so many donations his website is down.

I did receive a text from my uncle on the UWS reading “GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS," and saying how proud he was of his fellow New Yorkers.
posted by ob1quixote at 4:49 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


New Trump campaign message: “Our man is 34 times more appealing than his opponents”
posted by chavenet at 4:49 PM on May 30 [24 favorites]


Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Or suck on some solvent free sativa gummies if you don't. Your hands... they're beautiful.
posted by y2karl at 4:52 PM on May 30 [7 favorites]


No, I mean, have you ever REALLY looked at your hands?
posted by hippybear at 4:54 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


…sentencing in July, including details such as whether Trump shows any remorse.
(Recently reading up on the topic) Conduct during the investigation and court proceedings can't generally be used as an aggravating factor in sentencing, but they can be used to nullify a mitigating factor of the same type. For example, any remorse that he shows post-sentencing is almost certainly going to be nullified by having been warned by the court multiple times of obstruction and misconduct. Now that I know a bit about this I'll be curious to read the sentencing statement.
posted by WaylandSmith at 4:55 PM on May 30 [10 favorites]


Biden only has to ask one question at the debates: Mr Trump, are you willing to stand by your convictions? Mic drop, exit, stage left.
posted by OHenryPacey at 4:56 PM on May 30 [41 favorites]


Gillian Branstetter reminds us that Juror 2 got all his news from Truth Social and X. Which...is interesting, in light of the verdict.
posted by mittens at 4:46 PM on May 3


How is this a known thing?
posted by bluesky43 at 4:57 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


Presumably came out during voir dire?
posted by zoinks at 4:59 PM on May 30 [9 favorites]


there was a whole round of stories about the juror screening questionaires. So that's the self-reported news sources of Juror 2.
posted by kaibutsu at 5:00 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


Trump: a man of conviction.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:00 PM on May 30 [9 favorites]


If not jail, as a runner up I’d be good with a very clear sentencing report that due to his age, mental decline, and inability to control his bladder and bowels, that incarceration would not be appropriate . In 30 point font - published and carried by every media outlet, and snipped for social media.

Kind of what the special counsel did to Bidden, but 100 times worse / authoritative.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 5:01 PM on May 30 [16 favorites]


there was a whole round of stories about the juror screening questionaires. So that's the self-reported news sources of Juror 2.
posted by kaibutsu


source?
posted by bluesky43 at 5:01 PM on May 30


As a public defender, I'm more than familiar with having clients found guilty at trial. Normally with a first time offender (opinions may vary), it would be likely that he would get probation of some sort. That being said, I've had plenty of clients who continually refused to follow the judge's pretrial rules and the majority of those ended up in prison.
When the prosecutor argues that the defendant failed to obey when it wasn't mandatory, how can you expect him to follow the rules when you put him on probation, that is tough to counter.
Also, generally probation requires that you remain in the state that put you on probation...
posted by Thrakburzug at 5:02 PM on May 30 [44 favorites]


I'll take this small thing.

The pitching jury stepped away from the mound only once, and delivered a strike

A Great Day for America, Everybody
posted by JoeXIII007 at 5:04 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]


Has anyone seen Melania?
posted by essexjan at 5:04 PM on May 30 [12 favorites]


source?

NYT.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:04 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]


So where has the loving, supportive spouse been during this trial? She’s been sort missing from action for quite a long time.

My abject political cynicism due to the years of this orange slime has dropped maybe 0.5 % but at least there was a moment of feeling FINALLY!!! today.
posted by njohnson23 at 5:05 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


As a convicted felon, Trump now has to check “yes” on any form that asks if he’s ever been convicted of a felony, and while it’s highly unlikely that he’d ever face any real difficulty for it, there are a ton of those forms, impacting all sorts of different parts of American life. Anytime he has to actual check one of those “yes” boxes, it will infuriate him because this thing that affects a ridiculous percentage of Americans, making their lives inordinately different, continuing to hound and punish them long after having served their sentence, that thing now affects him.

This quote, pulled from Ghidorah’s excellent comment above, makes me curious: as a convicted felon, how much harder, either legally or practically, will it be for Trump to borrow from banks? Is there any real chance that access to credit for his businesses dries up?
posted by cheapskatebay at 5:10 PM on May 30 [9 favorites]


For example, any remorse that he shows post-sentencing

Wait, what? Who are we talking about again?
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 5:15 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


While I realize the thread has moved on from ebullient expostulating toward moar srs bzns, just gotta say this is a great day. I was already having a good day, and now this! I celebrated, like so:

THE CONVICTED FELON
1 oz orange syrup, Torani brand
1 tbs heavy cream
Clear liquor to taste
Dash bitters, Very Innocent Man brand
Ice
Pellegrino to fill
Stir well

Joyous Consequences Day, y’all :-)
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:15 PM on May 30 [28 favorites]


cheapskatebay: They would be corporate loans, but I wonder if lending restrictions like this extend to officers of a corporation. I'm sure he's officers of lots of different corporations. I wonder if that will limit the corporations in some way.
posted by WaylandSmith at 5:15 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


As a convicted felon, Trump now has to check “yes” on any form that asks if he’s ever been convicted of a felony

Like an SF-86
posted by ctmf at 5:15 PM on May 30 [10 favorites]


Covfevicted.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:16 PM on May 30 [29 favorites]


ctmf: What would happen if a president didn't qualify for a national security clearance?
posted by WaylandSmith at 5:17 PM on May 30 [12 favorites]


Oh thank heaven for 7-11.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:18 PM on May 30 [4 favorites]


He didn't qualify last time around.
posted by cmfletcher at 5:19 PM on May 30 [20 favorites]


*dances, poorly and not much, in street*

[more to come]
posted by 20 year lurk at 5:23 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


Even though I know there will be appeals, even though I know nothing about November can be known right now, I still cried when I heard guilty because finally, finally this man is being held accountable for SOMETHING. Even if it's just words, he's a convicted felon, he got convicted for subverting election laws, and he got convicted of all this because by god, people finally believed Stormy Daniels. They don't let you do it if you're rich, asshole.
posted by headspace at 5:25 PM on May 30 [47 favorites]


I hope the judge considered that he's a flight risk... No telling when he might run home to Putin...
posted by kaibutsu at 5:30 PM on May 30 [4 favorites]


Do you prefer the original Bobby Fuller Four version or the Clash cover?

Oysterband
posted by Pallas Athena at 5:31 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]


Get ready for the Carmine Soprano act.

He's about to become infirm.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:31 PM on May 30 [11 favorites]


In a laugh...
posted by y2karl at 5:31 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]


The rule of law lives to fight another day.
posted by tommasz at 5:35 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


Has the jury reached a verdict?

We have, your Honor.

Hit it!
posted by Zonker at 5:37 PM on May 30 [20 favorites]


"average U.S. President has 0.74 felony convictions" factoid actualy just statistical error. average U.S. President has 0 felony convictions. Felonies Georg, who lives in Mar-a-Lago & commits felonies constantly, is an outlier adn should not have been counted

0.75 if you only count Grover Cleveland once!
posted by aubilenon at 5:41 PM on May 30 [9 favorites]


Has the jury reached a verdict?

We have, your Honor.

Hit it! yt


Featuring Carl Anderson who sang Judas in the film version of Jesus Christ Superstar as the Judge!

Cop Rock had so much potential.
posted by hippybear at 5:44 PM on May 30 [9 favorites]


Trump was convicted in New York on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, in connection with hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels. He is facing 54 other felony counts in three other indictments
88 felony counts after 45 presidents…

44 if you only count Grover Cleveland once!
posted by mbrubeck at 5:50 PM on May 30 [4 favorites]


Do you prefer the original Bobby Fuller Four version or the Clash cover?


Well, ackshually, the original is by The Crickets. It was written by Sonny Curtis after Buddy Holly died. Sonny Curtis also wrote the theme song to the Mary Tyler Moore show, which is another one of my favorite "The same guy wrote both of those songs?" juxtapositions.
posted by jonp72 at 5:55 PM on May 30 [16 favorites]


The bartender didn't register why I ordered a Dark and Stormy, but then when I mentioned it was a Stormy Daniels tribute he said "oh duh, yes!" And high-fived me.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:04 PM on May 30 [41 favorites]


What I want to see is the Conrad Black column where Lord Black dishes his hottest jailbird wisdom for Daddy.
posted by Sauce Trough at 6:06 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


I got curious about presentencing and interviews with the probation officer so I did a quick web search. I'm not sure how specifically relevant these are, but I found them intriguing:

Your Presentence Report and How to Improve It, Nolo Press
Your Presentence Interview

Probation officers often question defendants very closely. An officer is likely to want to know a defendant's:

version of the criminal act giving rise to the conviction
reason or motive for committing the crime
prior criminal record, including juvenile record
personal and family history
education
employment history
health
past and present alcohol and drug use
financial status, and
military record (if any).

The defendant should come to the interview prepared to talk about these topics. Whenever possible, the defendant should bring documents that provide these facts (for example, a letter from an employer or military discharge papers). The defendant also should be prepared to explain why probation or some other lenient sentence is appropriate under the circumstances.

Improving Your Presentence Report

...

The defendant should be as prepared as possible before meeting with the probation officer, because the defendant may not be allowed to bring a lawyer into that interview. Preparation is also critical because probation officers may rely, when making their recommendations, on information that would not have been permissible in court at trial, such as inadmissible hearsay and illegally obtained evidence. The defendant must be careful about what he or she says in the interview, because probation officers can use the defendant's statements in their reports.
(emphasis mine)

What Should I Know About the Pre-sentence Investigation Report, White Collar Advice
Anyone going through a pre sentence investigation should remember probation officers are law-enforcement officers. If the probation officer believes the person lied, or provided misleading information, or if he believes the offender tried to influence others inappropriately, the probation officer may make things worse. The probation officer could charge the offender with obstruction of justice if he believed the offender tried to interfere with, manipulate, or subvert his investigation. With such a recommendation, the judge may add additional time to a defendant’s sentence.
Presentence Investigation , Western District of New York
The officer will also review numerous documents, which may include, court dockets, indictments, plea agreements, trial transcripts, investigative reports from other law enforcement agencies, criminal history records, counseling and substance abuse treatment records, scholastic records, employment records, and financial records.


Lots of folks are thinking about how the verdict may affect voters, but I'm also mulling how it will affect the convict. Having to make time for the presentencing meeting, having to continue working with attorneys that just lost this huge case for him, having to even contemplate modifying his behavior in advance of sentencing - that's not going to go well.

I'm very curious whether he'll be allowed to have an attorney at the presentencing meeting, and whether he'll answer the probation officer's questions or refuse to do so with the excuse of the pending appeal.
posted by kristi at 6:08 PM on May 30 [28 favorites]


Gillian Branstetter reminds us that Juror 2 got all his news from Truth Social and X.

I think that's an extremely simplistic take. Per this Forbes article and this Reuters article, that juror only knew Trump's Truth Social posts from seeing them on Twitter, and he also follows Michael Cohen on Twitter and listens to the "Mueller She Wrote" podcast.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:11 PM on May 30 [10 favorites]


Mueller She Wrote is a rather specific lens through with to get one's news. Their editorial choices about which stories to carry can be a bit off from what everyone else is talking about. I like them but have cut out their daily news and now just do their two Trump roundup podcasts, Cleanup On Aisle 45 and Jack.
posted by hippybear at 6:14 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


THE CONVICTED FELON
1 oz orange syrup, Torani brand
1 tbs heavy cream
Clear liquor to taste
Dash bitters, Very Innocent Man brand
Ice
Pellegrino to fill
Stir well


PSA: I tried this so you don’t have to. With 2oz of vodka, this is pretty revolting. Of course YMMV.
posted by neuracnu at 6:17 PM on May 30 [15 favorites]


I'm going to say that Trump is going to jail. One thing taken into account is whether a convict is repentant. Another is whether he'd do it again. His attacks on the system can be taken into account.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:19 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


Here in Ohio, the Dems are nominating Biden virtually because the official convention date is past the deadline to put him on the state ballot. I wonder if the Repubs are thinking of changing their whole convention date to be before sentencing.
posted by girlmightlive at 6:19 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


‘I did my job’: Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg speaks after Trump guilty verdict

Not much to add. Good job. Bragg doesn't do much media. Nor should they, he's a prosecutor. Literally not his job. Yet he speaks! He thanks the right people, takes some short questions and he's outta there. A man of few words. I did my job.

Which is the irony of how his life is about to change. He's made an enemy of the biggest shit-talking loudmouth on the planet. The guy who didn't have the good sense to STFU about the judge's daughter. A man of too many words, who held a press conference at every opportunity to moan about everything real and imagined.
posted by adept256 at 6:19 PM on May 30 [15 favorites]


this is pretty revolting

Like the man himself.
posted by aramaic at 6:24 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


The probation officer could charge the offender with obstruction of justice if he believed the offender tried to interfere with, manipulate, or subvert his investigation.

Uh yeah, no. They'd simply say in the report he refused to participate, or say how his demeanor was. Charges on anything that happens there is a huge stretch.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:28 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


Does this mean he can't vote in Florida now?
My wife said MSNBC said that he could if the Governor of Florida exempted him.
[Looks like other legal minds have weighed in and that wouldn't be necessary]
Wondering if DeSantis might hold a grudge. Probably not.

Charges on anything that happens there is a huge stretch.
Drug testing would be interesting, no?
posted by MtDewd at 6:31 PM on May 30 [7 favorites]


why, do they put drugs in big macs?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:34 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]


88 felony counts after 45 presidents…
44 if you only count Grover Cleveland once!


Donald was a criminal, he held out til the bitter end
Stormy was a different type, she's the one who accused him
Alvin was a good DA and Trump was afraid of a man like that
Merchan handled cases, shutting down Trump's attorneys flat.
posted by Gorgik at 6:34 PM on May 30 [20 favorites]


One thing taken into account is whether a convict is repentant.
Yes, but only as a mitigating factor, not an aggravating one. It's like that for pretty much anything related to the defendant's character and conduct except in exceptional circumstances. The best those factors are used for is to nullify a mitigating factor. For example, no good behaviour of his before sentencing will count for him because of how many times he was warned for obstructing the trial. But at best, the balance will be neutral for sentencing.
posted by WaylandSmith at 6:35 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


if there were drugs in his big macs he'd have done a better job of staying awake in court.
posted by Clowder of bats at 6:38 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


Went straight to the dispensary to get a celebratory joint. Expecting things to turn terrible but for now I shall enjoy a glimmer of hope for the world.
posted by AngelWuff at 6:38 PM on May 30 [10 favorites]


>One thing taken into account is whether a convict is repentant.
Yes, but only as a mitigating factor, not an aggravating one.


On the other hand a staple of the Jan 6 sentencing has been the judge mentioning people being unrepentant, disrespecting the court, etc. It's hard for me to believe that won't be an aggravating factor here.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:41 PM on May 30 [4 favorites]


This presentencing hearing seems to be based on the assumption that the felon, found guilty, now accepts that guilt and has contrition. Orange slime came out and said he is “an innocent man.” There is no sense of guilt or contrition in this person. He is a winner. The cognitive dissonance in this man must be raging. But the system has to keep functioning regarding this now convicted criminal. He must be stopped. Behind bars.
posted by njohnson23 at 6:43 PM on May 30 [9 favorites]


I sort of wonder if Trump has circulation issues. He's used to pacing around a lot, I don't get the impression he sits still for a long amount of time, he was complaining that a courtroom that others have documented to be above 70° was freezing, and he was falling asleep at the table. I'd be curious to know how healthy he actually is vs how the propaganda says he is.
posted by hippybear at 6:44 PM on May 30 [10 favorites]


Can Drumpf get a passport now? Pretty hard to govern if you can’t leave the country. Of course that’s probably a selling point to this constituency. I understood how he got around the SF86 last time, not sure it’s the same with State Department. Lots of senators and congressmen don’t have passports due to convictions.
posted by Farce_First at 6:48 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


The probation officer could charge the offender with obstruction of justice if he believed the offender tried to interfere with, manipulate, or subvert his investigation.

Uh yeah, no. They'd simply say in the report he refused to participate, or say how his demeanor was. Charges on anything that happens there is a huge stretch.
I only know what I read online (paging corb - do you know all the details of presentencing stuff?), but a search for

"presentence" obstruction new york site:gov

got me this:

Two Defendants Charged With Obstruction Of Justice In Connection With Sentencing Proceedings , in which a person convicted of conspiracy to distribute narcotics lied to the officer during presentencing, saying he had an addiction and so deserved a more lenient sentence, but in fact he had no addiction, and they charged him with obstruction for that lie. It goes on to note that obstruction has a maximum sentence of 20 years.
posted by kristi at 6:49 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


Oops, I've been quoting Canadian law. Please ignore what I've said about sentencing factors, but also please dig up some relevant US law, etc, on the matter, because I actually want to know.
posted by WaylandSmith at 6:52 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]


Holy shit! I missed the news as it was announced because my wife and I went for a walk and I made a point of leaving my phone at home…which is also what happened the night the Rob Ford Gawker story broke.

Please spend all day on July 11th out for a walk without your phone.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:52 PM on May 30 [43 favorites]


So if an E felony conviction (non-violent) is punishable by up to 4 years, Does that mean the judge could say, OK, you're sentenced to 1 year for all 34 counts served concurrently, but he could also say, you're sentenced to a year for each count served consecutively? Everyone seems to be saying that his max is 4 years, but it seems like maybe that's not really the case. I could be wrong though. I often am.
posted by BeReasonable at 6:55 PM on May 30 [4 favorites]


The speculation is running wild in here, absolutely wild.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:58 PM on May 30 [8 favorites]


The speculation is running wild in here, absolutely wild.

Is this your first time on MetaFilter?
posted by hippybear at 6:59 PM on May 30 [61 favorites]


Lock him up!
posted by mareli at 7:01 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


No, I mean, have you ever REALLY looked at your hands?

Another Doonesbury reference! <3
posted by Melismata at 7:03 PM on May 30 [7 favorites]


I've been here over 20 years, so no. But it is getting wild, yes, even for here!
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:03 PM on May 30 [10 favorites]


It's days like this I almost wish I were capable of feeling hope.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:04 PM on May 30 [17 favorites]


What if the judge sentenced him to be Biden’s butler?!?!? Possible? Legal experts?!
posted by mittens at 7:05 PM on May 30 [54 favorites]


I'm happy people are happy. But it's got huge "we got him!" energy that I will not find warranted until something that actually STOPS this man happens. I can't really cross fingers any more but it's nice people still have hope.
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:05 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


I will not find warranted until something that actually STOPS this man happens.

Sometimes you have to stop and smell the felonies.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:08 PM on May 30 [76 favorites]


sentenced him to be Biden’s butler?!?!?

He'd be a terrible butler, he's never cooked anything, cleaned anything, fixed anything...just sentence him to be the handler for for the dog that bites people.
posted by vrakatar at 7:09 PM on May 30 [19 favorites]


Being a good butler involves you anticipating someone else's needs and striving to fulfill them before the other person even knows they have the need. Trump... only has his own needs.
posted by hippybear at 7:11 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]




I do feel like the planet shifted a bit on its axis today. I honestly wasn't expecting this, but it is portentous, I think.

Wondering how this might affect the SCOTUS decision we should have already had a month ago.
posted by hippybear at 7:14 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


I'd be curious to know how healthy [Trump] actually is vs how the propaganda says he is.

It's all propaganda. Back in 2016, I was so categorically opposed to Trump that I was bound & determined to influence anybody I could in my larger Facebook network, regardless of whether they were left-wing, moderate, apolitical, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, what have you. In my everything-but-the-kitchen-sink strategy, I would post everything from National Review's Against Trump issue to articles in Golf Digest about how Trump cheats at golf.

But out of all those articles, the most insightful article I've ever read about Trump was an article called Editing Trump (archive link) from Cinemontage, the trade journal of the Motion Picture Editors Guild. The article was amazing, because all it did was interview the unionized film editors who had worked on the Apprentice. And the gist was that Trump was a complete lunatic on the set who made totally irrational decisions as to who to hire and fire, and the editors understood that their job was take all the craziness and edit something out of it that made Trump's decisions look rational. Many people based on their vote for president based on that illusion of business competence that The Apprentice created.

Based on this article, I'm pretty much going to assume that everything about Trump is a lie, including his lies. You may think he is so blatantly disgusting and craven out in the open that there must be some kind of authenticity to it. But I'm convinced that, if you peel the paint, there's still layers of lies underneath that we have not seen, nor can we fathom.
posted by jonp72 at 7:16 PM on May 30 [79 favorites]




If only he'd knock over a bank or something. By god we'd have him then.
posted by stet at 7:19 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


sentenced him to be Biden’s butler?!?!?

Apprentice to Sen. Clinton's personal assistant's assistant.
posted by sOCK dRUNKPUPPET at 7:23 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


Does this conviction have any bearing on the other trials?

An interesting point is that in Fulton County, GA, bond is determined by the Ayala factors, one of which is the likelihood that the defendant will commit a felony while out on bond. Which is *absolutely* impacted by the number and recency of the defendant’s felony convictions.
posted by corb at 7:23 PM on May 30 [18 favorites]


I will not find warranted until something that actually STOPS this man happens.

Odds are, it'll be something fast food-related.
posted by klanawa at 7:24 PM on May 30 [7 favorites]




ob1quixote: “I did receive a text from my uncle on the UWS reading “GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS,"”
Update. My uncle informed me that he found out when he was outside a bar in Red Bank, New Jersey. He went in and informed the bartender who said, "Who? Charged with what?"

"It's a great country," he concluded.
posted by ob1quixote at 7:50 PM on May 30 [21 favorites]


jonp72 that link is amazing and frightening and so insightful. Everyone should read that.
posted by vrakatar at 7:51 PM on May 30 [7 favorites]


Yeah, I read that same link from jonp72 and it was an excellent read and worth the time. It's mid length.
posted by hippybear at 7:53 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


I appreciate the joke as much as the next MeFite, but maybe put the kibosh on associating Trump and Cleveland, for no-thank-you heebie-jeebie reasons.
posted by tzikeh at 7:54 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


"Do we have a playlist for this event, like when Biden won?"

Crab Rave 10 Hours
posted by Jacqueline at 8:00 PM on May 30 [3 favorites]


Compared to intentionally getting several hundred thousand Americans killed in 2020

wtf son? what you talking about? still raging about a vaccine?

lame for 2024
posted by winston smith at 8:00 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]


Apparently, you are declared a felon only after the sentence has been entered, which should happen in July. So right now, he's just a felon-elect.
posted by McSly at 8:14 PM on May 30 [22 favorites]


I haven't read the "Editing Trump" link yet, but I just read this one, and they seem like they might go well together...

The Donald Trump I Saw on The Apprentice: For 20 years, I couldn’t say what I watched the former president do on the set of the show that changed everything. Now I can.

Just published today (got upstaged a little by the other Trump news today) by a guy whose NDA just expired.

It quotes Trump as saying “Yeah, but, I mean, would America buy a n— winning?" depicts him sexually harassing a bunch of women, and talks about him forgetting things and messing up lines in ways they had to cut and edit. So you know, nothing surprising, but pretty good symbolism. Now I'll read the other one.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:27 PM on May 30 [19 favorites]


McSly: "Apparently, you are declared a felon only after the sentence has been entered, which should happen in July. So right now, he's just a felon-elect."

"STOP THE (34) COUNTS!"
posted by Rhaomi at 8:28 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


I'm suddenly lamenting the closure of the Newseum in DC, because they used to have a physical and virtual display of the front page of newspapers around the world for the day - and I wish we could get to see what that would look like tomorrow.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:29 PM on May 30 [20 favorites]


Stephen Colbert picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue...

MEANWHILE...
posted by Windopaene at 8:33 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


I have to wonder: do his attorneys think they’ll actually get paid?

And also: I wonder what his prison name will be.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 8:38 PM on May 30 [9 favorites]


"Convicted Felon Donald Trump" is music to my ears.
posted by lock robster at 8:40 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


What would happen if a president didn't qualify for a national security clearance?

I have no idea. If I remember right, Jared clearly didn't qualify and the White House essentially ordered it to be granted anyway. Could he do that for himself? I don't know if that's *legally* possible, but "I did it, what are you going to do about it" IS his M.O.
posted by ctmf at 8:49 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


So how's Truth Social looking tonight? Anyone care to check?
posted by JoeZydeco at 9:03 PM on May 30 [1 favorite]


You can sing "Donald Trump, Convicted Felon" to the tune of "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles."

And the "heroes in a half-shell" part could be "tiny-fingered half-wit!"
posted by Ursula Hitler at 9:05 PM on May 30 [8 favorites]


I do hope someone’s keeping an eye on that thing.
posted by ducky l'orange at 9:05 PM on May 30


Security clearances don’t apply to Presidents, Vice Presidents, members of Congress, etc. They have presumptive access to the information needed to execute their constitutional duties. The security clearance system is basically a delegation of presidential authority.
posted by AndrewInDC at 9:06 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


What would happen if a president didn't qualify for a national security clearance?

Presidents don't really have clearances, or need to qualify for them. They get to see intelligence just by holding the office. Besides, the functioning of the clearance regime flows from an executive order in the first place.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:08 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


I thought the initial question was presidential *candidates*

Because I can see no reason for Biden to green-light those briefings
posted by DebetEsse at 9:09 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


"STOP THE (34) COUNTS!"

"STOP THE SENTENCE” may work better.

Trump’s core supporters are working with a limited set of tools. Wouldn’t it be interesting if they tried to do the same thing on 7/11 as they did on January 6? I’m certain the police will be prepped for it.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:28 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


I’m certain the police will be prepped for it.

On whose side?
posted by maxwelton at 9:51 PM on May 30 [21 favorites]


The Metafilter Access Hollywood tape thread had 2480 comments. Unfortunately titled, He's never gon to be president now.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:54 PM on May 30 [16 favorites]


Is it the optimism that makes it unfortunate or the Hamilton reference?
posted by stet at 10:02 PM on May 30 [2 favorites]


Hamilton reference for today...

History is happening in Manhattan
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:36 PM on May 30 [12 favorites]


Incidentally, today is also the 34th anniversary of the Garfield comic strip in which Jon Arbuckle accidentally drinks a cup of dog semen. Li'l synchronicity for ya.
posted by rifflesby at 11:04 PM on May 30 [25 favorites]


Also the anniversary of covfefe (depending on your timezone)
posted by vibratory manner of working at 11:40 PM on May 30 [5 favorites]


So that's what covfefe means? It makes sense in retrospect.
posted by netowl at 11:44 PM on May 30 [6 favorites]


> I will not find warranted until something that actually STOPS this man happens.

Sometimes you have to stop and smell the felonies.


The real treasure is the felonies Trump was convicted of along the way.
posted by zardoz at 12:21 AM on May 31 [5 favorites]


I'm taking today's blue tie as an omen and you can't stop me.
posted by flabdablet at 12:30 AM on May 31 [1 favorite]


Wouldn’t it be interesting if they tried to do the same thing on 7/11 as they did on January 6?

Too close to 7/7 (2005 London bombing) and it rhymes with 9/11. If they're trying to avoid a resemblance to terrorists, that would not be a good way to do it.
posted by rhizome at 12:44 AM on May 31


And also: I wonder what his prison name will be.

Why, "Brandon" of course!
posted by rhizome at 12:45 AM on May 31 [6 favorites]


I'm suddenly lamenting the closure of the Newseum in DC, because they used to have a physical and virtual display of the front page of newspapers around the world for the day - and I wish we could get to see what that would look like tomorrow.

The Guardian does a bit of this (not as many images this time as usual, unfortunately)
posted by trig at 1:22 AM on May 31 [5 favorites]


Katie Couric and Lisa Fern, producer for Nicole Wallace, who was there behind Trump: What It Was Like in the Courtroom as the Verdict Was Read.
posted by y2karl at 1:34 AM on May 31 [3 favorites]


My thought when I read the verdict was that some angry Trump supporter would likely try to figure out the names and addresses of the jurors. Would Trump go so far as to post this information on Truth Social or wherever, since presumably he has it?
posted by tallmiddleagedgeek at 1:43 AM on May 31 [2 favorites]


My thought when I read the verdict was that some angry Trump supporter would likely try to figure out the names and addresses of the jurors. Would Trump go so far as to post this information on Truth Social or wherever, since presumably he has it?

Who knows? but presumably he'd get the lawyers to do it and that would get them a prison sentence and disbarment. Like all of his lawyers.

Another thought: it is well-described how totalitarian governments demand of their loyalists that they parrot obvious lies. It's a way of compromising everyone and also of course gaslighting less informed souls. But most know they are lies. You can't convince me that any Republican member of congress doesn't know they are lies. It seems that in history, this has been a weakness for all totalitarian organisations, left or right. As soon as the dear leader dies or seems less all-powerful, the second tier scramble to denounce him, in order to escape punishment, wether that is legal or political punishment. Look at the Stasi post. No-one wanted to own responsibility for East Germany after the wall came down.
I think Trump is substantially weakened by this trial. Right now, the details haven't arrived to most Republicans out there, but over the weeks it will. The die hard ideocracy with their billionaire sponsors won't move, but they will get closer to the eternal and inescapable 27%.
Also, the sordid foundational items of Trumps affairs will not be lost on any women, who already hold Trump responsible for the end of Roe vs. Wade.

In North Korea and China, they have made sure to have the next generation of despots ready to go, to avoid this. But I can't see a new Trump. His sons are too weak, Ivanka is too wishy-washy and doesn't has an ounce of folksiness. The various vice-presidential candidates have humiliated themselves beyond repair, which is by design. Trump doesn't want to be outshined.
posted by mumimor at 2:20 AM on May 31 [16 favorites]




And, after all the dust settled, they finally realized America had been saved by a porn star.
posted by DreamerFi at 2:56 AM on May 31 [31 favorites]


Bookmakers betfair have narrowed the odds of Trump winning the election.

Betfair customers wagered more than £600k in the last 24 hours, 48% on a trump win.
posted by Lanark at 3:04 AM on May 31 [2 favorites]


"While the defendant's statement of contriteness..exists, as it were, it is mitigated by the fact that the defendant threatened the judge and the prosecutors via social media *glances at watch* no less than fifteen minutes before entering the courtroom."
posted by LostInUbe at 3:55 AM on May 31 [9 favorites]


I guess there is one less vote for Trump in Florida now. Much is being made of the fact that Trump is the first former president to be convicted of a felony. This should be viewed in the context that Nixon would almost certainly have been a convicted felon had he not been pardoned by partisan hack Gerald Ford.

I wonder what would happen if Biden responds to this by saying he would pardon Trump if he is re-elected. Although I guess Biden can’t pardon Trump for state crimes. But it could certainly confuse the hell out of Trump supporters.
posted by TedW at 4:26 AM on May 31 [6 favorites]


What's the over under on pardon trump candidates in the next NY gubernatorial race?
posted by cmfletcher at 4:33 AM on May 31 [4 favorites]


And, after all the dust settled, they finally realized America had been saved by a porn star.


Some heroes don't wear capes. Some don't wear anything at all.
posted by delfin at 5:06 AM on May 31 [34 favorites]


Looks like Trump has 6 months to appeal, and a stay of sentence during that period is likely, so don't get your hopes too high that any real consequences will be enforced before the election.
posted by rikschell at 5:07 AM on May 31 [8 favorites]


Elections are about stories, and already the "Convicted Felon: 34 counts!" story is strong. If sentencing is handed down by October, that's good enough. He can serve it after he loses the election.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 5:09 AM on May 31 [4 favorites]


Is there a running tally of just how many court cases Trump has lost vs. Won since 2016?
posted by srboisvert at 5:10 AM on May 31 [3 favorites]


Elections are about stories, and already the "Convicted Felon: 34 counts!" story is strong.

Alas, the man-on-the-street interviews I'm hearing in this morning's news are trending towards the "well, this actually isn't changing my mind about him" in both directions.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:14 AM on May 31 [2 favorites]


Vox Pops are of limited value, as they select for the kinds of people who are willing to talk on camera. The real power is "But mom, are you really going to vote for him again after he was convicted of 34 felonies? Can you live with yourself this time?" conversations causing some boomers to just Stay Home this year.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 5:23 AM on May 31 [12 favorites]


Vox pops are kind of notorious for not being a representative sample.

Putting aside that not everyone encountered on the street might want their opinion to be broadcast, reporters will pick and choose a balance of responses that make it to air so they can't be criticized for bias even if their actual sample leans heavily in one direction.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:24 AM on May 31 [9 favorites]


this actually isn't changing my mind about him" in both directions.

Who the hell expected anyone on the "Well, I wasn't going to vote for TFG but now that he's a felon I'm all in" side?
posted by Mitheral at 5:28 AM on May 31 [16 favorites]


Looks like Trump has 6 months to appeal, and a stay of sentence during that period is likely, so don't get your hopes too high that any real consequences will be enforced before the election.

Or, you know, at all. This man has not seen consequences for anything. There's no reason there will be some now.

Besides that, sentencing can be pushed back before appeals even begin. The resolution of this case won't be before the election.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:31 AM on May 31 [3 favorites]


Who the hell expected anyone on the "Well, I wasn't going to vote for TFG but now that he's a felon I'm all in" side?

Do the last ten years not give you an answer to this?
posted by obfuscation at 5:32 AM on May 31 [4 favorites]


The resolution of this case won't be before the election.

Worth noting, of course, that since it's a state case, even if he's elected he would have limited statutory power to interfere. Presumably the process will continue moving forwards --- hooray for "states' rights"!
posted by jackbishop at 5:41 AM on May 31 [5 favorites]


Besides that, sentencing can be pushed back before appeals even begin. The resolution of this case won't be before the election.

He may try to find another set of terrible lawyers after this, lawyers who may or may not actually file the appeal as or when required.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:44 AM on May 31


Delfin, my weird brain took your line of “ some heroes wear nothing at all” and superimposed it on Air Supply’s “Making Love Out of Nothing At All” alas, I am at a conference all day and don’t have even a thimble-full of the skills required to make a campy YT video…but the idea is out there!
posted by childofTethys at 5:47 AM on May 31 [4 favorites]


[Politico] Trump campaign warns GOP candidates not to fundraise off Trump’s conviction
“Any Republican elected official, candidate or party committee siphoning money from President Trump’s donors are no better than Judge Merchan’s daughter,” said Trump co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita. “We’re keeping a list, we’ll be checking it twice and we aren’t in the spirit of Christmas.”
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:53 AM on May 31 [18 favorites]


Whoa, has that ever happened before, the strict "do not fundraise cause the big guy needs it more?"
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:58 AM on May 31 [6 favorites]


Not even the loyal capos who sat in the gallery for him?
posted by cmfletcher at 5:59 AM on May 31 [3 favorites]


Most people don't seek information that goes against their general perception. I don't much either. So it will be a while before some people (not all people) begin to realize what really happened, and what is happening.
With Republican voters, their leaders are lying, their media are lying and they are themselves lying, all the time. But still, Trump and Trumpism lost the last two elections. They don't have the power they had in 2015/16. And they don't seem to able to gather the violent crowds of Jan 6 anymore. I don't think anyone should relax, but I don't think anyone should panic either. If you want to panic, go to the EU elections and the dire situation in Ukraine.

As we have talked about so many times, the worst thing is the both-sides-ism of the mainstream media who seem to think they are obligated to put a lie next to every fact. It's been almost ridiculous for anyone following this case, where it was obvious that the defense had no defense, even to a lay person, but still CNN and the big news "papers" gave time/space to pundits inventing complicated explanations as to why there shouldn't even be a case.

And apropos RonButNotStupid's post above, Trump is grifting off of the Republican Party and they can't afford to run this election. I don't know how much money is needed to win an election, it isn't as clear as we all once thought, but I think some Republican down-ballot candidates will be in dire straights.
posted by mumimor at 5:59 AM on May 31 [19 favorites]


My only hope is that this changes some of the horse-race coverage. This election has always been about the marginal voter in swing states. Are 5% of the Drumpf voters now going to simply stay home or not vote for a Presidential candidate? I’d like to see some polling swing even slightly in Biden’s favor or at least against TFG.

I watched Drumpf’s full post-conviction speech on the BBC last night (oddly not anywhere on US News platforms….) and he sounds like an old man who constantly repeats himself and certainly didn’t look “presidential”. I’d love to see the “well, it’s Biden’s to lose…” conversation start, but that’ll never happen.

What’s going to grind my gears is that no press agency is going to refer to TFG as “Convicted Felon TFG” due to the technicality that he’s not a felon until after sentencing so the f’ing press is going to toe that line in their never ending “balanced coverage” BS.

And who wants to bet this is forgotten in a week? EVERY scandal of TFG’s get’s overlooked by the next one and the average voter seems to have the memory of a gnat.
posted by Farce_First at 6:00 AM on May 31 [3 favorites]


Who the hell expected anyone on the "Well, I wasn't going to vote for TFG but now that he's a felon I'm all in" side?

The hardcore Trumpoids expect that, or at least that's what they've been splashing all over social media. Some of them continue to crow that now that an obviously innocent man has been convicted of 34 crimes that his Biden Administration persecutors know don't exist and won't even attempt to name, denied a jury, denied the ability to defend himself or even speak in his own defense, denied witnesses, denied prominent legal experts who could've come in and simply explained that Trump committed no crimes and the prosecutors themselves should be prosecuted for this farce, the average man on the street will have his eyes opened wide to the rampant injustice of this blatant railroading and will immediately join Team Trump to kick out these ELECTION INTERFERERS and Take Back America.

This is, of course, insane on "walking into 7-Eleven and flinging your own poop in all directions" levels.
posted by delfin at 6:08 AM on May 31 [7 favorites]


I just want to give appreciation to the jury for doing their job well. 12 random citizens came together in a spirit of good faith to render considered judgement against another citizen, who just happened to be a former president.

In small moments we are reminded of the difficulty and the power of self-governance.
posted by rhymedirective at 6:10 AM on May 31 [43 favorites]


Some heroes don't wear capes. Some don't wear anything at all.

And still others strap-ons.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:11 AM on May 31 [10 favorites]


I just want to give appreciation to the jury for doing their job well. 12 random citizens came together in a spirit of good faith to render considered judgement against another citizen, who just happened to be a former president.

Yeah, my concern through all this was of the stealth MAGA fanatic who would get empaneled and force a hung jury on all counts.
posted by Epixonti at 6:20 AM on May 31 [10 favorites]


That's probably easier said than done. Everything I've heard about the jury selection process is that it's pretty thorough and anyone going into it with ulterior motivations to lie or deliberately answer questions in a way that they think will boost their chances of getting empaneled probably stands out.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:37 AM on May 31 [1 favorite]


I just realized that if they put him on house arrest and he wins the election, they won't make him stay in Mar-A-Lago, they'll just let him move to the White House.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:39 AM on May 31 [1 favorite]


If he's under house arrest at Mar-A-Lago can we start calling it "The Southern Sing Sing"
posted by cmfletcher at 6:43 AM on May 31 [4 favorites]


I know people with DUI convictions generally have difficulty traveling to Canada. I wonder how the Mounties feel about 34 felony convictions 🤔🇨🇦🫎
posted by funkaspuck at 6:46 AM on May 31 [3 favorites]


Sing-a-Lago
posted by chavenet at 6:46 AM on May 31 [1 favorite]


sweet chariot
posted by saturday_morning at 6:51 AM on May 31 [7 favorites]


OK, I'm not a fan of George Conway at all, but this is to the point.
posted by mumimor at 6:52 AM on May 31 [4 favorites]


As has happened before, none of this will make any difference to Trump supporters. The guy whose house I have to pass when I go to the grocery store has had a Trump 2024 sign up since 2020. Yesterday it was changed to a Trump Wanted sign with a pic of a menacing looking Trump (it's cool Trump is being tried and even better if he's convicted). Nothing matters.

No, these convictions won't change the minds of anyone in the Trump cult, but from an electoral standpoint, that fact doesn't matter at all. Trump's hardcore supporters aren't enough to win elections. Trump needs centrist/swing voters, but his appeal isn't getting broader, and these guilty verdicts won't help him at all.

On top of that, Trump's carefully cultivated (and totally phony) aura of being a winner whose victory is inevitable has been punctured. The perception that Trump is a loser -- which, I believe, the rabidity of the Trump cult is a reaction against the cognitive dissonance of knowing it, deep down -- has gained traction.

I have been cautiously optimistic about Trump losing again this November, and today I am more certain he will lose. Which doesn't mean we can afford to be complacent, but rather we should double our efforts to run up the score, keep control of Congress, and bury Trump fascism once and for all.
posted by Gelatin at 6:53 AM on May 31 [55 favorites]


I share your cautious optimism, Gelatin, assuming that the media stops masturbating over him.
posted by Melismata at 6:57 AM on May 31 [7 favorites]


What I want to see is the Conrad Black column where Lord Black dishes his hottest jailbird wisdom for Daddy.

It'll be Blago not Black.

You've got this conviction...it's fucking golden.
posted by srboisvert at 6:58 AM on May 31 [1 favorite]


Owned lol.

By the "funniest thing" principle, I predict that he will get significant prison time and still win the election. I think the fact that we're still debating over whether this cinches it is a good indicator of the strength of his opponent.
posted by jy4m at 7:09 AM on May 31 [4 favorites]


I think the fact that we're still debating over whether this cinches it is a good indicator of the strength of his opponent.

I think we're still debating this because the basically cromulent Democratic candidate is up against a fascist strongman whose cultish base is ready to put forth a generational push to complete their decades long project of ending democracy.

Have their been Democratic candidates who would be clear winners against that kind of tidal wave? JFK, maybe?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:27 AM on May 31 [12 favorites]


the funniest thing is definitely trump locked up in county, getting knuckle tats, in an a-shirt surrounded by secret service, watching the election results from a tv mounted in a plexiglass box and winning from prison. that would be the apotheosis of the american system of justice
posted by dis_integration at 7:28 AM on May 31 [3 favorites]


No touching!
posted by snofoam at 7:30 AM on May 31 [4 favorites]


Click-baity, slideshow but I'm posting because we deserve a day of smiles, right? 34 memes on convicted felon DJT (gizmodo)
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 7:39 AM on May 31 [2 favorites]


Now that it affects him, now that it hinders him, he will almost certainly rail against the injustice of it. And that’s absolutely beautiful. I look forward to the presumptive GOP nominee for president railing about the unfairness of laws that continue to punish felons even after they’ve completed their sentencing.
Eliminating felony convictions for certain white-collar crimes seems rather more plausible as a backlash to this. Although Trump certainly won't push for anything explicitly that helps anyone other than himself.

And on the other side, I'm seeing a lot of glee upthread about things that unnecessarily make life harder for felons.
posted by joeyh at 7:46 AM on May 31 [6 favorites]


If we can't stop the hunter from laying traps, we can at least be satisfied when he steps in one of his own.
posted by Scattercat at 7:54 AM on May 31 [9 favorites]


Due to appeals he is very unlikely to receive a prison sentence prior to the election. If he receives a prison sentence after the election, that would be a very interesting situation, because this is the only one of his four cases that is non-federal, meaning he cannot pardon himself. He'd have to move the Oval Office to his prison cell. The powers that be aren't going to let that happen. He'll be fined instead.
posted by Geoff Epstein (no relation) at 8:05 AM on May 31 [1 favorite]


Appeals don't stop a prison sentence. 99% of convicts appeal from prison. He is in the hands of Judge Merchan right now. Fortunately, he has done nothing to antagonize Merchan.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:14 AM on May 31 [73 favorites]


Fortunately, he has done nothing to antagonize Merchan.

My first actual LOL from Metafilter in recent weeks, thank you!
posted by Melismata at 8:16 AM on May 31 [5 favorites]


That felon is speaking about the verdict and the news organizations are covering it like it's a coronation. The media sucks.
posted by bluesky43 at 8:17 AM on May 31 [17 favorites]


FWIW TFG is scoring 'low' on remorse right now.
posted by mazola at 8:19 AM on May 31 [5 favorites]


Are convicted felons allowed to leave the state before sentencing?
posted by Thorzdad at 8:29 AM on May 31 [3 favorites]


Eric Trump wrote: "May 30th, 2024 might be remembered as the day Donald J. Trump won the 2024 Presidential Election."
I find this standard Fox News meme to be really hilarious. Maybe this is why Trump put on a pitiful defense. Maybe Merchan was in Trump's pocket and did this to help his election. Maybe we can get guilty verdicts in all his course cases to really, really help Trump.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:36 AM on May 31 [10 favorites]


I'd probably avoid 5th Avenue while Trump is walking free in NYC, in case he gets any bright ideas about bucket lists or something.
posted by pwnguin at 8:43 AM on May 31 [13 favorites]


I’d love to see the “well, it’s Biden’s to lose…” conversation start, but that’ll never happen.

I mean, not to rain on the 34 parades happening today, but if you have been spending any time listening to younger people (18-ish through their early 30s), who the Dems desperately need to show up, your opinion of Biden's chances might not be optimistic at all.
posted by tzikeh at 8:45 AM on May 31 [5 favorites]


“the defence never had a story that the jury could accept”

[The defense lost because] “They never picked a lane, and because Donald Trump closed off every lane that could have been reasonably been picked”

Best summary I've read of how the defense legal team failed. How could a juror have a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's strong case if a stronger innocent alternative hasn't been made credible?
posted by Artful Codger at 8:47 AM on May 31 [9 favorites]


I'm suddenly lamenting the closure of the Newseum in DC, because they used to have a physical and virtual display of the front page of newspapers around the world for the day - and I wish we could get to see what that would look like tomorrow.

The Freedom Forum still does this online, with a much larger set of front pages.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:51 AM on May 31 [3 favorites]


I think Trump made the mistake of shooting someone on 4th Avenue.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:51 AM on May 31 [6 favorites]


FAFO
posted by thecincinnatikid at 8:55 AM on May 31 [2 favorites]


The New Yorker is offering a sneak peak at the cover of their June 10, 2024 issue.
posted by orange swan at 9:23 AM on May 31 [18 favorites]


Best summary I've read of how the defense legal team failed. How could a juror have a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's strong case if a stronger innocent alternative hasn't been made credible?

Yeah, that's a really good summary. I think maybe it undersells the point that no pool of jurors was ever going to be unaware of the defendant's whole public persona, and that even a coherent defense strategy would have been undercut by that aspect. Which is to say that Trump didn't need to say a word in the courtroom itself for the jurors to feel like this must have been intentional.

It both blows me away and doesn't surprise me at all that Circus Peanut turned right around after the verdict came down to once again antagonize Justice Merchan's daughter again (in that warning shot to GOP candidates that TFG gets to keep all funds that may be raised off of this.) In my criminal defense clinic in law school, there was a cartoon on the wall of a lawyer leaning over to his client whispering "my incompetence is going to lay the grounds for your appeal," and that's what this feels like: Trump thinks that if he behaves poorly enough, he can prove bias on the part of the justice he's throwing a tantrum in front of. Because that's absolutely the kind of moonshot that's worked for him so many times in the past. But I have doubts about it here. Justice Merchan has handled everything about as well as could possibly be expected.

My worry is that "his" justices are consulting with him in one way or another about how to bring the best case for when this eventually reaches SCOTUS. That would be hugely improper and unethical, of course, but as we're seeing currently with JJ. Thomas and Alito, there really aren't any consequences for Supreme Court Justices.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:25 AM on May 31 [10 favorites]


how the defense legal team failed

The thing is that if this had been a trial of literally anybody else, they would have taken a plea deal. This was a loser case and the best defense attorneys in the world couldn't have won it on its merits. The prosecution had TFG dead to rights on the criminal charges, and barring some sort of wild card factor such as the prosecution royally screwing up the case or the jurists being MAGAts, he was going to lose. But between TFG's presidential hopes and his ego, he simply could not plead guilty, so he went to trial.

That's no defense of Trump's legal defense team, mind you. They're corrupt and incompetent, as they were bound to be, as no lawyer worth their salt would take Trump on as a client at this point.
posted by orange swan at 9:34 AM on May 31 [25 favorites]


Thing is, with this guy most of the time they don’t need to be competent. Why bother when usually everything just gets handed to you?

Of course when that Durant happen it’s extremly hilarious for everybody else.
posted by Artw at 9:42 AM on May 31


The thing is that if this had been a trial of literally anybody else, they would have taken a plea deal. This was a loser case and the best defense attorneys in the world couldn't have won it on its merits. The prosecution had TFG dead to rights on the criminal charges, and barring some sort of wild card factor such as the prosecution royally screwing up the case or the jurists being MAGAts, he was going to lose. But between TFG's presidential hopes and his ego, he simply could not plead guilty, so he went to trial.

QFT, and it's the same with each one of his pending trials.

That's how you know that when a lawyer takes on a Trump case, they are either stupid or desperate. Maybe they have a gambling debt. Or something.
posted by mumimor at 9:49 AM on May 31 [9 favorites]


I like that the Trump legal team thought they had a hung jury in the bag because of a juror's body language. It's peak alpha that someone wasn't scowling at them so they thought it was love (also this is how dog brains work)
posted by srboisvert at 9:49 AM on May 31 [18 favorites]


The piece also demonstrates how insulated from the world the ivory tower "law experts" are with their inability to understand the whole electoral fraud aspect of the case without it being explained to them like they're five - though at this point that just strikes me as being How Law Academia Works.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:50 AM on May 31 [1 favorite]


The thing is that if this had been a trial of literally anybody else, they would have taken a plea deal. This was a loser case and the best defense attorneys in the world couldn't have won it on its merits. The prosecution had TFG dead to rights on the criminal charges, and barring some sort of wild card factor such as the prosecution royally screwing up the case or the jurists being MAGAts, he was going to lose. But between TFG's presidential hopes and his ego, he simply could not plead guilty, so he went to trial.

Trump and Trump.org have both agreed to massive settlements for other crimes in the past. Many many times. I think it was just that he now thinks he has immunity for everything.
posted by srboisvert at 9:54 AM on May 31 [8 favorites]


He's getting high on his own supply.

Rule #2: don't do that.
posted by mazola at 9:56 AM on May 31 [4 favorites]


Words I never thought I'd be typing but has anybody heard what Liz Cheney has to say about the conviction? I did a quick search but didn't see anything being reported.
posted by sardonyx at 10:06 AM on May 31


I, too, felt a little giddy and may have cried, just a tiny bit, with happiness and relief that the system sometimes kinda works.

Also

ONE MILLION YEARS DUNGEON!
posted by exlotuseater at 10:08 AM on May 31 [4 favorites]


Vox pops are kind of notorious for not being a representative sample.

Cue Jake Byrd.
posted by y2karl at 10:09 AM on May 31 [1 favorite]


Trump and Trump.org have both agreed to massive settlements for other crimes in the past. Many many times.

It's my understanding that those were civil lawsuits, not criminal. TFG has a long history of crimes and of being sued in civil court, yes, but has not faced actual criminal charges before now.
posted by orange swan at 10:12 AM on May 31 [6 favorites]


The thing is, there is a problem with the Trump method of avoiding consequences.

This method basically boils down to: it didn't happen; if it did happen, it wasn't wrong; if it was wrong, it wasn't illegal; if it was against the law, it is unenforceable in this particular case; other people have done worse anyway, so you shouldn't be enforcing that law; if you're not going to wave it off, I didn't know about any of this anyway, so I shouldn't be the one charged; if you can prove I knew and the law is going to be enforced, that would only be to persecute me for political reasons; and in any case, if this goes to court, you'd have to let me off because I was president.

Trouble is, that may be enough to scramble a news cycle or bully a low information voter into shrugging, but it's hardly a coherent take to present in a court of law.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:14 AM on May 31 [32 favorites]


Rep. Mo Brooks' Twitter:
GOP faces choice. USA future at stake.

Keep Trump as nominee & gamble USA’s future.

OR

Replace Trump with a good character nominee & BEAT THE STEW OUT OF BIDEN!
posted by box at 10:19 AM on May 31 [5 favorites]


Well there’s some weirdly unfounded optimism about the Republican Party from someone who is a member of the “Freedom Caucus”.
posted by Artw at 10:22 AM on May 31 [7 favorites]


Yeah, but that'd require finding a Republican with good character.

Snark aside, it is good to see cracks forming in the foundation.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 10:22 AM on May 31 [13 favorites]


Do remember that Brooks is on his way out, as he lost his primary to the Trump-backed candidate.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:28 AM on May 31 [16 favorites]


The piece also demonstrates how insulated from the world the ivory tower "law experts" are with their inability to understand the whole electoral fraud aspect of the case without it being explained to them like they're five

It’s not that they can’t understand the election fraud aspects, it’s that crimes have elements that are different from “everyone knows it” that you generally have to prove for conviction.
posted by corb at 10:32 AM on May 31 [6 favorites]


From Teflon Don to T'felon Don over the course of a single afternoon.
posted by jamjam at 10:34 AM on May 31 [39 favorites]


Fox News has a predictably galaxy-brained piece on "Winners & Losers After the Verdict." (archive so you don't have to give them any traffic.)

Winner: Donald Trump.
Loser: Robert De Niro.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:35 AM on May 31 [2 favorites]


It’s not that they can’t understand the election fraud aspects, it’s that crimes have elements that are different from “everyone knows it” that you generally have to prove for conviction.

Elements that the prosecution did, in fact focus on - for example, the whole point of the prosecutors bringing up Trump's lack of concern over Melania finding out was to establish that the intent of this conspiracy was to protect his candidacy.

Again, their arguments (at least to me) come across as ignorant, dodging what was actually presented in court to try to argue that the electoral fraud charges were overreach.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:47 AM on May 31 [3 favorites]


The important thing is that he had his wife at his side throughout the trial, demonstrating his family's steadfast American values.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:53 AM on May 31 [16 favorites]


Obviously, the highest priority questions we have for the future are: how do we eventually get rid of this man; how do we undo the damage he did; etc.

But I think we are all also looking forward to finding out exactly what in the fuck he offered Melania that is keeping him with his sorry ass, even now.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:56 AM on May 31 [4 favorites]


Honestly it feels like the commentators were trying to spin up controversy out of something straightforward in order to make it a horse race, as we are familiar with from every other aspect of Trump media coverage. So a media thing, not a law thing. Also helps them legitimize it if Trump gets a free pass literally no other person would get.
posted by Artw at 10:57 AM on May 31 [6 favorites]


I'll respect Merchan if he takes into account precedent and decides that someone with Trump's history of lack of convictions and the moderate weight of his crimes should only receive probation and a fine.

I'll lose respect for Merchan if he takes into account Trump's past employment or current undertakings to reduce his sentence.

That said, I think that Trump's complete lack of remorse and vitriolic denigration of the legal system will lead him to put Trump in jail, even if only for a short period. By the standard of the law, Trump is a convicted felon and has no legal argument that he is a victim.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:58 AM on May 31 [6 favorites]


I respect putting Trump in jail because fucker has asked for it and seeing things happen to him that would happen to other people is very, very funny.
posted by Artw at 11:01 AM on May 31 [13 favorites]


After several prompt revisions on chatGPT, I think I've got a winner...
Apologies to Lee Greenwood

(Verse 1)
If tomorrow all the prisons closed
And I walked out with my pride,
I’d claim my tiny hands were framed,
It's a truth they can't abide.
It was a witch hunt, don't you see,
They feared my brilliance so,
But I won’t stand with those who envy me,
They’re the ones who should go.

(Chorus)
And I'm not proud to be in prison
For a crime I didn’t do,
It’s a grand conspiracy against
A genius like me, it’s true.
So I’ll sit here with my delusions,
In this cell where I’m confined,
‘Cause there ain't no fault in these small hands,
God, let my genius shine.

(Verse 2)
From the lakes of Minnesota
To the hills of Tennessee,
Across the plains of Texas,
From sea to shining sea.
From Detroit down to Houston
And New York to L.A.,
The world just couldn’t handle me,
But I’ll have the final say.

(Chorus)
And I'm not proud to be in prison
For a crime I didn’t do,
It’s a grand conspiracy against
A genius like me, it’s true.
So I’ll sit here with my delusions,
In this cell where I’m confined,
‘Cause there ain't no fault in these small hands,
God, let my genius shine.

(Bridge)
These small hands are innocent,
They’re destined for the stars,
A victim of their pettiness,
Imprisoned behind bars.
I’m the one who’s misunderstood,
Their schemes will fall apart,
My hands are pure, my mind is bright,
They fear my giant heart.

(Chorus)
And I'm not proud to be in prison
For a crime I didn’t do,
It’s a grand conspiracy against
A genius like me, it’s true.
So I’ll sit here with my delusions,
In this cell where I’m confined,
‘Cause there ain't no fault in these small hands,
God, let my genius shine.

(Outro)
And I'm not proud to be in prison
For a crime I didn’t do,
It’s a grand conspiracy against
A genius like me, it’s true.
So I’ll sit here with my delusions,
In this cell where I’m confined,
‘Cause there ain't no fault in these small hands,
God, let my genius shine.
posted by Nanukthedog at 11:05 AM on May 31 [5 favorites]


BREAKING NEWS: Robert De Niro has withdrawn from the 2024 presidential race, citing poor FOX NEWS poll numbers
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:05 AM on May 31 [13 favorites]


I respect putting Trump in jail because I want people who think that wealth or political power make them above the law to be very, very afraid.
posted by box at 11:05 AM on May 31 [19 favorites]


Please never apologize to Lee Greenwood.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:08 AM on May 31 [22 favorites]


Appeals don't stop a prison sentence.

They don't have to. But under the circumstances (Trump's secret service detail etc) I would expect a prison sentence to be stayed on appeal, in this case.

As hilarious as it would be for the Republican Party candidate for President to be thrown in Rikers by a NY judge months before a general election ... I just don't see it happening.
posted by Geoff Epstein (no relation) at 11:26 AM on May 31 [3 favorites]


Speaker Mike "Appeal to Heaven" Johnson is unsurprisingly a fan of deus ex machinas:

Johnson urges Supreme Court to "step in" on Trump verdict
"There's a lot of developments yet to come, but I do believe the Supreme Court should step in, obviously, this is totally unprecedented," Johnson said Friday in an appearance on Fox and Friends.

"I think that the Justices on the court – I know many of them personally – I think they are deeply concerned about that, as we are. So I think they'll set this straight," the Louisiana Republican added.

But, Johnson added, "it's going to take a while ... this will be overturned, guys, there's no question about it, it's just going to take some time to do it."
posted by Rhaomi at 11:28 AM on May 31 [3 favorites]


They don't have to. But under the circumstances (Trump's secret service detail etc) I would expect a prison sentence to be stayed on appeal, in this case.

So why not house arrest? It’s odd that you went straight from “possibility of prison” to “just a fine”
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 11:30 AM on May 31 [3 favorites]


Johnson urges Supreme Court to "step in" on Trump verdict

It really bothering with the whole illusion of impartiality thing they kind of sort of go for.
posted by Artw at 11:35 AM on May 31 [13 favorites]


If you put him in house arrest he’s just going to ignore it and then you’re back to deciding if you do real arrest or not.
posted by Artw at 11:36 AM on May 31 [9 favorites]


The best bet for conservative Supremes (and Aileen Cannon) is to do as little as possible re Trump until after the election. If he wins, this all goes away (the fact that it's a state conviction doesn't matter because he will basically be ripping up the Constitution first thing).

If he loses, they can have more time to come up with some bullshit that will make things harder for everyone but rich white dudes, per their operating instructions.

Now whether they can resist doing their special little guy a favor for that long is an open question, also depending on what their benefactors want them to do.

I'm still rooting for an Elvis-like ending but in the meantime we just have to keep this sad little criminal man and his very scary Nazi buddies away from the levers of power.
posted by emjaybee at 11:41 AM on May 31 [16 favorites]


Hey guys, guess what? About that appeal, it turns out the Manhattan Appellate Court is five black women.

I'm sure they're fine judges, aware that they must set aside their personal feelings in their duty. He can't understand that. For a racist and misogynist like him, that's impossible. And he'll try to explain why, explaining nothing beyond the fact that he's a giant racist and misogynist. Just look at them! Can't you SEE how biased they are?
posted by adept256 at 11:41 AM on May 31 [28 favorites]


Mike Johnson is shit
posted by mumimor at 11:42 AM on May 31 [26 favorites]


(Just to clarify something the article doesn't make clear until halfway down, that's a photo of just five out of the full 21 justices on that court.)
posted by nobody at 11:50 AM on May 31 [11 favorites]




Are 5% of the Drumpf voters now going to simply stay home or not vote for a Presidential candidate?

Can we please not do this? His last name is Trump. I don't care what his grandfather's last name was. A person's preferred representation of their own name is the definitive word on what their name is.

I mean, is the joke supposed to be that "Drumpf" is more "ethnic"? Or that it looks funny to American eyes? Because lots and lots of totally normal people had grandparents with "ethnic" names that got Americanized, either by their own choice or forcibly by immigration officials, and they're a lot more likely to see this than Trump is.

Or is the joke supposed to be that his family's name change makes him a liar somehow? It's not misleading or funny to change your name. Lots of people do it every day for lots of perfectly good reasons, and those folks are also a lot more likely to see this than Trump is.
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:13 PM on May 31 [37 favorites]


🎵🎵🎵
Don't it always seem to go
Invincible until you are not
You paid for some vice
Now you're picking up shit in parks
🎵🎵🎵
posted by McBearclaw at 12:24 PM on May 31


It's a joke from an old Last Week Tonight episode where Oliver used it to not only undercut Trump's name-based branding, but point out how his is an immigrant family. Even he thinks it's pretty played-out at this point though.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:25 PM on May 31 [11 favorites]


adrienneleigh: Or is the joke supposed to be that his family's name change makes him a liar somehow? It's not misleading or funny to change your name.

How soon we forget. With antisemitism thrown in to the deal!

Reap and sow. I'm happy to call him Fuckface von Clownstick if you like, but the Drumpf thing is a specific and legitimate response to what he said and I'm not mad about it even though all eight of my great-grandparents had to change their names when they arrived on these shores.
posted by tzikeh at 12:26 PM on May 31 [9 favorites]


It's just to hilight his immigrant hypocrisy. He married an immigrant ffs. Anyway fuck this guy, you're presuming he's owed any respect. Fuckface lost that a long time ago, call them whatever you want.
posted by adept256 at 12:26 PM on May 31 [19 favorites]


fwiw my parents had to change their name because in English it sounds like a synonym of 'ass city'.
posted by adept256 at 12:31 PM on May 31 [4 favorites]


The Drumpf/Trump thing isn't misnaming him with something fanciful to deny him his identity; it's reminding people that the anti-immigrant fuckwit's people were immigrants too. It's far closer to the resistance genealogy folks than huh huh, your name sounds funny.

That said, it is played out now, and as a bit, depends on the notion that the right would be shamed by hypocrisy, which uh... they don't do shame or acknowledgement of hypocrisy.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:37 PM on May 31 [9 favorites]


If it helps, "trump" is also a posh word for "fart" in British English.
posted by aesop at 12:38 PM on May 31 [9 favorites]


As a weird detail in this context, there is a bizarre Syrian-Danish politician/influencer/something who is a Trump supporter who always calls him Drumpf. It's funny, but I don't know why he does it. It can't be out of spite.
posted by mumimor at 12:39 PM on May 31 [3 favorites]


I think there's something pretty bizarre going on with Trump’s episodes of sleeping supposedly accompanied at times by putrid farting/shitting because, as the end of the trial seems to show, they were not restricted to the inevitable doldrums of a long criminal trial, but did occur when matters were at their most intense and consequential.

Which gives those spells a startling resemblance to a common mammalian defensive behavior: playing dead and shitting yourself as a last resort to avoid being attacked by predators — with putridity presumably given a boost by a contribution from the anal glands, which humans have in common with other animals.

Babies often seem to soil their diapers right after they fall asleep, and it’s fairly common for scared two year olds to hold their breath until their lips turn blue and they faint, though I wasn’t able to find any information about whether they also tend to soil their diapers during such an event.

The kind of upbringing which could have led a person to retain that behavior into adulthood scarcely bears thinking about, but that we could have elected such a person President and might again certainly makes me want to faint.
posted by jamjam at 12:43 PM on May 31 [5 favorites]


We could just call him Don Cohn since he's the son that little fucker never had.
posted by East14thTaco at 12:44 PM on May 31 [3 favorites]


That said, it is played out now, and as a bit, depends on the notion that the right would be shamed by hypocrisy, which uh... they don't do shame or acknowledgement of hypocrisy.

That made me wonder what the disqualifying line is for the GOP these days. Really, the only disqualifying thing I can think of now is not sharing TFG's delusions. That's a neat trick for TFG as that's a line he ain't gonna cross.
posted by mazola at 12:45 PM on May 31 [1 favorite]


Name-calling has its place, but maybe less necessary now that convicted felon Donald Trump is available for use? (I'm still really enjoying typing that.)
posted by mersen at 12:49 PM on May 31 [11 favorites]


I just want to point out that i said, right here, "He's a racist fuckhead, we all know that." I'm not even slightly upset about "calling out a racist for being racist".
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:51 PM on May 31 [2 favorites]


I’m going to say here and now that I highly doubt he will get jail time over these. But the likelihood of him committing an additional compounding crime, like threatening a juror over this, is high as fuck. And *that* might be something they impose jail time for.
posted by corb at 12:55 PM on May 31 [10 favorites]


That's President Racist Fuckface von Clownstick, please.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:58 PM on May 31 [5 favorites]


[dropping out of perma-lurk here for the second time in 2 days because DJT is so egregious I cannot hold my tongue]

A couple of thoughts about July 11.

You may want to reconsider advocating for community service. A case could be made that the Presidency itself, sans salary, fits the definition. Yikes.

Please do advocate for a full Trump psych exam. As a clinically diagnosed 'malignant narcissist' who is a threat to others, he could be held indefinitely, heavily medicated (H2G2's empathy gun anyone?), and forced to confront himself in psychotherapy. Which would be a fitting end to this saga.
posted by zaixfeep at 12:58 PM on May 31 [5 favorites]


The comparison to deadnaming is nonsensical. Trump regularly insults people if they or their families came to the US via immigration, despite the history of his name reminding us that his family did the same.

The only way this would be analogous would be if say, Caitlyn Jenner regularly insulted women who were AMAB as inferior to women who were assigned female at birth.

It's a really terrible analogy that truly feels like it is being presented in bad faith.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:59 PM on May 31 [9 favorites]


No one is sent to a mental health facility for being a narcissist.
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:00 PM on May 31 [7 favorites]


I don't see him serving actual jail time, boy oh boy did he do everything he could to be in contempt of Merchan's court, so I could see him sentenced to the full power of the laws he's no longer above. Merchan can and should, of course, send the message, and let the appellate court sort it out if they choose to do so.
posted by OHenryPacey at 1:01 PM on May 31 [2 favorites]


21 Experts Predict What the Trump Conviction Will Mean for 2024 and Beyond (Politico, (rolls eyes, makes jerk-off motion))
posted by box at 1:01 PM on May 31 [1 favorite]


Trump regularly denigrates people when they or their families came to the US via immigration, despite the history of his name reminding us that his family did the same.

Which doesn't change the fact that attacking him in this manner causes a lot of collateral damage by legitimizing attacking someone's name, or a name that they may no longer be using (which is why deadnaming came up in the first place.)
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:03 PM on May 31 [5 favorites]


Seems a stretch TBH.

Mainly I don’t think it’s good as it’s late 2010s resistance lib nonsense.
posted by Artw at 1:06 PM on May 31 [4 favorites]


Making this even simpler: asshole says "I hate people X"; someone says, "You are people X." This is relevant.

Deadnaming would only be a fair comparison if you found a trans person who changed their name so that they could pretend to be cis and say transphobic shit.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 1:06 PM on May 31 [7 favorites]


If I wanted to be an immature little shit, I would call her Hatelyn. One can be an immature little shit to a horrible privileged celebrity(ie punching up) without purposely deadnaming them, which I agree is below-the-belt.

PS yeah I concede sometimes I can be an insufferable immature little shit. It keeps me sane.
posted by zaixfeep at 1:13 PM on May 31 [6 favorites]


21 Experts Predict What the Trump Conviction Will Mean for 2024 and Beyond (Politico, (rolls eyes, makes jerk-off motion))

Some of these are interesting and decent takes, but... ugh, some of the same old nonsense.

"The most disquieting facet of this case is that it did not pertain to: anything Trump did as president, nor anything Trump did during his current run for office, nor anything Trump did in the macabre transition process four years ago."

How is that disquieting? How does the fact that it didn't happen when he was President mean it's less of a crime?

"It involved his actions nearly 10 years ago, in relation to the concealment of an alleged crime for which other prosecutors declined to ever charge the former president."

They declined to charge him because he was the sitting president at the time and there's an argument to be made that the prosecutors didn't "decline to charge" so much as they simply said they had concluded the investigative portion of their work.

"The potential for an arms race of recriminations is now bottomless. Americans of all political stripes will one day regret ever letting this genie out of the bottle."

So... were the courts and the jury supposed to just let him go scot-free out of fear that holding him accountable for crimes he clearly committed would give Republicans tacit permission to start going after their political opponents? As if Republicans have ever needed a reason to break laws, break norms, break basic standards of decency to seize and hold power and unfairly go after their opponents? Come on.

"Whatever one thinks of Trump, when half the country mistrusts the judicial system, when prosecutors and judges act in so partisan a manner that ideals of impartiality no longer hold, the civic faith collapses."

That's funny, I was under the impression that civic faith was collapsing for a whole bunch of reasons, not least of which was Donald Trump, Republicans, and a transparently corrupt Supreme Court actively, tirelessly undermining democratic institutions and civic norms. I didn't realize the real culprit was... prosecutors doing their jobs and judges carrying out the law (unless by "judges" this author was referring to Aileen Cannon's utter perversion of the courts, but something tells me that's not the case).

This is so stupid. This is what undermines public faith in our democracy and our institutions-- not just Trump himself committing the crime, but Republicans who can't even be bothered to try defending him on the merits of the case coming out to insist that it's all political, to lie to our faces about how "divisive" it is. That's what's political, that's what's divisive, and shame on anybody who amplifies these lame-ass talking points.
posted by Method Man at 1:16 PM on May 31 [20 favorites]


Tiny frying pan: To clarify, per expert '@OurShallowState',s tweets, Malignant Narcissist = Narcissist + Psychopath or Sociopath; the key for me is that he is a danger to others.

Even so I concede it may not be enough for a psych hold.
posted by zaixfeep at 1:18 PM on May 31 [1 favorite]


It is not enough. He would never be classified as a danger to others in a psych context. That's pure fantasy.
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:19 PM on May 31 [3 favorites]


A 24-hour poll: 1 in 10 Republicans less likely to vote for Trump after guilty verdict (Reuters). By the percentages, it's only 9% of the Republicans out of Reuters/Ipsos' 1000+ respondents that said they were less likely to vote for Trump. More interesting is the response from independent voters in the poll: 25% marked that they were less likely, 18% said they were more likely.
posted by greenland at 1:21 PM on May 31 [4 favorites]


Tiny frying pan: OK I bow to your expertise. Please allow me to privately savor the fantasy anyway. :-)
posted by zaixfeep at 1:24 PM on May 31 [1 favorite]


jamjam: with Trump’s episodes of sleeping supposedly accompanied at times by putrid farting/shitting

I don't think that is really a thing. Well, the sleeping, yes.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/04/24/false-claim-cnn-reported-trump-soiled-himself-in-court/73442307007/
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:39 PM on May 31


Thanks Method Man for laying out the facts.

I really hate all the "divided nation" Stuff. 30-40% of the electorate have completely abandoned reality in favor of blatant lies, because they don't like real life and prefer a cult-like organization. This has been seen before in history. Mostly because they prefer white supremacy, but there are a lot of Latino people who have fled from socialist authoritarian countries who are understandably afraid of that too, which is fair but also ignorant, I'm sorry. I can't guess what black trumpists are about.
posted by mumimor at 1:40 PM on May 31 [1 favorite]


None of these experts ever FUCKING worries about MY half of the country mistrusting the judicial system. For some reason.
posted by Horkus at 1:43 PM on May 31 [23 favorites]


Mod note: No deletions made so far, but, can we stop derailing the conversation with the Drumpf/Trump and deadnaming Caitlyn Jenner or not discussion? That can be discussed in MetaTalk if you feel is necessary.
posted by loup (staff) at 1:44 PM on May 31 [37 favorites]


Greenland - I would have expected 0% so that’s something.
posted by Artw at 1:46 PM on May 31 [1 favorite]


Trump and Trump.org have both agreed to massive settlements for other crimes in the past. Many many times.

It's my understanding that those were civil lawsuits, not criminal. TFG has a long history of crimes and of being sued in civil court, yes, but has not faced actual criminal charges before now.


The Trump Organization was convicted of tax fraud.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:09 PM on May 31 [6 favorites]


Of course, if he just gets a fine then he once again plays the "Illegal for a fine is legal for a price" card and walks off.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 2:14 PM on May 31 [14 favorites]


Kind of… I feel like personally guilty may be different than guilty via a shell org. Gets to be pulled into court and photoed coming out of it making that face for a start.
posted by Artw at 2:20 PM on May 31 [3 favorites]


Name-calling has its place, but maybe less necessary now that convicted felon Donald Trump is available for use? (I'm still really enjoying typing that.)

Retconning TFG to mean "That Felon Guy"
posted by solotoro at 2:40 PM on May 31 [11 favorites]


I'd just like to take a moment to thank the jurors. It had to cross their minds at some point that finding Trump guilty could lead to them being targeted by Trump's more thuggish supporters, but they went ahead and did their civic duty anyway. They're entitled to feel proud of that.
posted by Paul Slade at 2:45 PM on May 31 [30 favorites]


Roughly 1 in 6 voters (17%) said a guilty verdict would make them less likely to vote for Trump. That was true of a quarter of nonwhites and 1 in 5 voters who make less than $50,000 a year and those under 45.

This is a terrible statistic. The guilty verdict did not make it less likely that I would vote for Trump. There was no chance before, and there is no chance now. No change. I expect the same is true for most of the people reading this thread and about 40% or more of all Americans.

If you take out all the voters who were never going to vote for Trump in the first place, that statistic becomes much more significant. Of course, that might not be accurate, because the reporting is so bad we don't really know what the statistic means for the election, beyond the fact that it might affect some votes.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 2:51 PM on May 31 [8 favorites]


A 24-hour poll: 1 in 10 Republicans less likely to vote for Trump after guilty verdict (Reuters).

I wish those polls or those reporting on them would tie the results back more strongly to effects in the handful of swing states that will decide the general election for the rest of the country. Throwing a few simple percentages at the reader is hand-wavy, at best.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:03 PM on May 31 [2 favorites]


It's my understanding that those were civil lawsuits, not criminal. TFG has a long history of crimes and of being sued in civil court, yes, but has not faced actual criminal charges before now.

They've actually faced criminal investigations from the justice department for several previous forms of fraud. It's just that like most businesses they are able to buy their way out punishment because it is pretty much impossible to jail a business (risky so pull a Merrick Garland!), governments like big fines (ka-ching!), and they don't like having to actually try cases in court (work ugh!) . So instead of getting criminally charged they pay a big fine and admit no wrong doing and the government cashes the check.
posted by srboisvert at 3:12 PM on May 31 [3 favorites]


Reuters/Ipsos polls FAQ page.

Reuters/Ipsos polls are usually open a week; this one opened after the verdict and closed earlier today. For these polls, participants "selected through a postal address-based sampling method that includes all U.S. households" respond to an online survey.

Six times a year, "Reuters/Ipsos conducts a poll of at least 4,000 respondents;" throughout the year, "Reuters/Ipsos conducts at least 24 polls of presidential approval and other topics. Those polls reach at least 1,000 people over a few days and typically have a margin of error of about 3.5 percentage points for the full sample."

Q: What are some limits of the Reuters/Ipsos Poll?
A: The Reuters/Ipsos poll is designed to be nationally representative. That can limit its utility in projecting the outcome of presidential elections, which are decided on a state-by-state basis.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:15 PM on May 31 [1 favorite]


Whatever effect this verdict may have on voters, what I hope is that Trump's 34 felony convictions for falsifying business records will make big donors, especially CEOs and business owners, think twice about the wisdom of entrusting their money to him.
posted by Pallas Athena at 3:35 PM on May 31 [2 favorites]


It's true that you need to look at state by state polling to get a more precise reading of the election but state polling is correlated pretty strongly with national polling so if Trump loses ground because of the conviction nationally he will necessarily do so in the swing states as well. So it's definitely good for Biden's chances if we see any slippage in Trump's national numbers.

I'm not convinced we will see any sustained slippage because of the conviction, sadly. Of course I also thought it would be an 11-1 hung jury so there's that.
posted by Justinian at 3:35 PM on May 31 [2 favorites]


If I counted correctly, Trump joins 26 governors from 16 states who are chief executives who have been convicted of a crime. Illinois leads, of course, with a total of 5, including 4 out of 7 governors between 1973 and 2009. Alabama is second at 3.

It's almost equal between Republicans and Democrats. Most of it was corrupt money stuff.

So I guess I'm trying to say this is precedented?
posted by clawsoon at 3:47 PM on May 31 [4 favorites]


I've long envisioned an event like this to be promptly followed by a fatal heart attack on a golden toilet.

A bolt from the blue would suffice.
Or better yet -- space junk!
posted by y2karl at 4:22 PM on May 31 [1 favorite]


Trump supporters try to doxx jurors and post violent threats after his conviction
The posts ... appear on many of the same websites used by Trump supporters to organize for violence ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. ...

“I hope every juror is doxxed and they pay for what they have done,” another user wrote on Trump’s Truth Social platform Thursday. “May God strike them dead. We will on November 5th and they will pay!” ...

One Jan. 6 defendant who already served time in prison for his role in the Capitol attack also weighed in on X, posting a photo of [District Attorney] Bragg and a photo of a noose. “January 20, 2025 traitors Get The Rope,” he wrote, referring to the date of the next presidential inauguration.
posted by Nelson at 4:23 PM on May 31 [12 favorites]


Nelson: "One Jan. 6 defendant who already served time in prison for his role in the Capitol attack also weighed in on X, posting a photo of [District Attorney] Bragg and a photo of a noose. “January 20, 2025 traitors Get The Rope,” he wrote, referring to the date of the next presidential inauguration."

...also referring to a violent neo-Nazi trope, but I guess that's to be assumed at this point.
posted by Rhaomi at 4:28 PM on May 31 [6 favorites]


Wow, that article that Nelson posted is a bit more unhinged with what it's talking about than these pull-quotes posted here thus far. The level of stochastic terrorism that seems to be acceptable in our society by certain parties these days is truly terrifying.
posted by hippybear at 4:36 PM on May 31 [1 favorite]




Go out and buy a newspaper tomorrow. Save it for your children.

Done.
posted by y2karl at 5:48 PM on May 31 [3 favorites]


Conviction fallout: Trump would need special permission to attend next year's G7 in Canada (CBC).

Yeah, we Canadians need to err on the side of caution here. His sort of crazy seems contagious. He can skype in. kthx.
posted by Artful Codger at 5:57 PM on May 31 [9 favorites]


He can skype in.

To risky. Best to completely block that fucker.

posted by fimbulvetr at 6:41 PM on May 31


Difference between Democrats & Republicans:

- Democratic pundits: Should Biden withdraw? Is is dead? Or just nearly dead? How can he possibly win? We need a new candidate now. Help, we are losing. Continue this drumbeat for at least 2 years right up to election day.

- Republican pundits and media monolith: Spent the last two months (or is it more like 2 years or 2 decades?) industriously inoculating their voters against Trump's likely conviction. "System is rigged, judge is biased, Trump is a martyr, blah-blah-blah."

End result is, Trump is convicted unanimously of 34 felonies and his voters think it's all a fraud and he is a maligned hero. They love him more, not less.

Meanwhile Democratic voters are quite sure that their candidate - who is reality is possibly the best and most effective president in several decades, and definitely in the top 1 or 2 if not very top - hasn't a chance.
posted by flug at 7:41 PM on May 31 [30 favorites]


Is there something that can be done to mess with doxxers? Phony profiles?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:35 PM on May 31


who is reality is possibly the best and most effective president in several decades, and definitely in the top 1 or 2 if not very top -

Maybe it’s the bruise I still have on my body from the police beating me at my campus protest for Palestine, while I was a legal observer, while Biden called for more funding for cops and an end to the “disorder” which prevents me from seeing the supposed top qualities. I guess I’m just funny like that.
posted by corb at 8:37 PM on May 31 [35 favorites]


We need WITSEC for jurors now.

Literally every article I see is saying Trump wins in a landslide no matter what.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:45 PM on May 31 [1 favorite]


Literally every article I see is saying Trump wins in a landslide no matter what.

You are maybe reading news sources which are doing horse race calling six months out from an election using flawed polling?

The majority of the US electorate isn't even paying real attention to the election yet and they won't until maybe mid Sept, early Oct. All polling now, and even FiveThirtyEight is beginning to admit polling is broken more now than ever, is basically useless. Six months is 12 lifetimes in an election cycle.

I mean, maybe I'm deluded. If Trump wins this election the chances I end up in a camp for homosexuals is non-zero. So maybe I'm clinging to hope beyond hope for my own safety.

I do believe that the more Trump gets seen by the public and the election approaches... the more they will be reminded he's a lunatic.

I'd be most curious to see the numbers after the first debate.
posted by hippybear at 8:52 PM on May 31 [15 favorites]


Post some of the articles? It's two bad candidates in a margin of error tie, even in the recent doomsday coverage. Predicting anything at this point seems really arbitrary and seems to deny that events continue to unfold from now to November. (I make no prediction but I do think, even though it isn't October yet, the week's news amount at least to what I'll call a "Comey," in Biden's favor.)
posted by kensington314 at 8:56 PM on May 31 [5 favorites]


Sorry corb, that is terrible
posted by Windopaene at 8:56 PM on May 31 [12 favorites]


Yeah I haven't seen a single article from a non right wing trash site that thinks Trump will win in a landslide. I'm not sure it's even possible to win in a landslide in this day and age on a national level.

The popular vote will likely be within a couple of points either way. The electoral college is more variable because such a small number of votes in a few areas can mean +/- 60 electoral college votes but the margins in those states will be anything but landslideish.

I mean, I think Trump currently has a >50% to win the election but I wouldn't be surprised if he loses the popular vote while doing so. If he does win the popular vote I'd be very surprised if it was by more than 2%.
posted by Justinian at 10:05 PM on May 31 [8 favorites]


tbh my intrusive thoughts kind of want Biden to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote just to see the cognitive dissonance on the GOP's part when they try to declare that an illegitimate win but I beat those thoughts down into submission because it would be a dangerous thing.
posted by Justinian at 10:12 PM on May 31 [12 favorites]


I would chortle at that as well Justinian..l
posted by Windopaene at 10:20 PM on May 31 [3 favorites]


People are talking about logistic difficulties of putting Trump in prison...I don't understand. It's easy. You put him in solitary confinement with two Secret Service agents outside his door. It will be way cheaper than the current situation.
posted by madhadron at 10:53 PM on May 31 [12 favorites]


Sadly, the NY charges are quite unlikely to come with any sort of jail time for a nonviolent first time offender. We all know this isn't the first time he has offended only the first time he's faced consequences but as far as the system is concerned it's still a first offense. And reluctantly I am forced to concede that's how it should probably work.
posted by Justinian at 11:18 PM on May 31 [3 favorites]


Mod note: Updated moderation: I've deleted several comments because the derailing was significant and was getting (and would continue to get) a ton of flags. In general, I will say it's fine to note something that you dislike or have preferences about ("I don't like using silly insulting names for Trump, because it's childish," "I don't like using the family's original pre-immigration name because it feels too close to deadnaming people"), and then allow that to just be your own statement of opinion that might make other people think, "hm, I hadn't looked at it that way," or whatever, but please don't heatedly and repeatedly demand that everyone must conform to your preference. Just speak for yourself, please, and people can think about and consider that viewpoint. Thank you.
posted by taz (staff) at 11:38 PM on May 31 [48 favorites]


EAnd reluctantly I am forced to concede that's how it should probably work.

I dunno. Certainly for a first time offender with an E felony I would expect the baseline to not be jail. However, the defendant shows absolutely no remorse, has repeatedly disobeyed the court’s instructions, and has publically gone after the court workers and their families. If this was an average citizen, we would expect them to have the book thrown at them.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 5:45 AM on June 1 [17 favorites]


I mean, I think Trump currently has a >50% to win the election but I wouldn't be surprised if he loses the popular vote while doing so. If he does win the popular vote I'd be very surprised if it was by more than 2%.

Trump is not going to win the popular vote in 2024. He didn’t in 2016 and he didn’t in 2020. No Republican has won the popular vote for president since 1988 (I discount 2004 because GWB shouldn’t have been the incumbent in the first place.)

Americans do not want to elect Republicans president.
posted by rhymedirective at 5:58 AM on June 1 [14 favorites]


The election interference is the reason the document falsification is a felony. It should matter for sentencing that the election in question was for US president and not some lesser office. I don't know if it does matter, but it should.
posted by surlyben at 6:22 AM on June 1 [18 favorites]


The guilty verdict may not make a huge difference to voters overall, but I think it will have at least a small percentage impact against Trump. A not guilty verdict could have helped Trump significantly, though.

Also, has anybody come up with collages of the number 34 found in everyday life? I imagine so, but we need to meme the heck out the number.
posted by blue shadows at 7:45 AM on June 1 [3 favorites]


I posted earlier that 48% were still gambling on a trump win, but back in early May that was 65%, I would hazard a guess that the average gambler skews to the right wing.
posted by Lanark at 7:50 AM on June 1 [2 favorites]


Morning Consult poll from Friday: 15% of Republican voters want Trump to drop out of the election.
posted by box at 8:26 AM on June 1 [8 favorites]


I apologize for using the word "landslide," but every article everywhere in many papers that I've seen for the last bunch of months says Trump wins at this point. Whether or not that's accurate or not, who the hell knows, but it used to be "it's very close" and now there is just a constant barrage of "everyone hates Biden and Trump will win." It feels like a landslide reading them all. Especially when 'even conviction won't change minds" is now added to the list.

I wish Trump would go to jail, not just for the obvious reasons but for the facts that he will keep acting up otherwise. But I think everyone including the judge think it's SO difficult to incarcerate him with Secret Service agents (plus the death threats escalating, I guess) that there's no way they're gonna set the precedent on this one with him running for office. Sigh.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:37 AM on June 1 [1 favorite]


I also forgot to say that yeah, WHY IS IT SO HARD? Stick him in one of those empty prison buildings I read about and have the Secret Service at the door of his cage.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:56 AM on June 1 [4 favorites]


Well, "convicted felon Donald John Trump" does have a nice ring to it.

But, yeah, it ain't going to affect his numbers much.

I will add though:

Meanwhile Democratic voters are quite sure that their candidate - who is reality is possibly the best and most effective president in several decades, and definitely in the top 1 or 2 if not very top - hasn't a chance.

Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees that Biden is the best or most effective president ever, that has more or less nothing at all to do with his electoral chances. And sadly, Trump is up in many critical states.

We're quite likely looking, yet again, at an election where the Democrat will win the popular vote, but lose the Electoral College.
posted by sotonohito at 9:07 AM on June 1 [1 favorite]


> think it's SO difficult to incarcerate him with Secret Service agents

put him in the state pen's PC. Problem solved.
posted by torokunai at 9:17 AM on June 1 [2 favorites]


'This is a bad day for America' - voters split on Trump verdict: We asked independent voters and Republicans who have doubts about Trump if conviction changes anything. [BBC]

On the one hand: OMG why do I read these(?!); on the other: 1/4 commits to voting for TFG so there's that.

Not sure who these people are representative of but it gives me hope that any talk of a 'R' landslide may be skewed.
posted by mazola at 9:35 AM on June 1


Didn’t Hitler get charged with something and put in jail before he took power? All you (America ) have done is provide fuel for the performative outrage. Best dismantle the trap before moving the cheese, I should think. There isn’t seem to be any collective will to actually do that, though, just a lot of finger crossing, hoping that your rickety democracy holds. If it doesn’t, what are you going to actually do? Just live with it?
posted by lastobelus at 9:44 AM on June 1 [1 favorite]


All you (America ) have done is provide fuel for the performative outrage. Best dismantle the trap before moving the cheese, I should think.

What does this even mean?
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 9:53 AM on June 1 [18 favorites]


I dunno but it's real angry, a sort of agitprop.
posted by Nelson at 9:55 AM on June 1 [7 favorites]


Given all the horrid shit every president has done, Biden does have a very high bar to clear. I think it can be true that all the Israel bs from Biden makes him terrible and he's still one of the best presidents we've had.

Our system is setup to make it a choice between the two worst candidates so that's usually what we get. That some also do a bunch of good shit is great but I'm not surprised when they do something terrible.
posted by VTX at 9:58 AM on June 1 [4 favorites]


Blogger Mark Palko: Things are going to get ugly, and that's just in data journalism

Go for the observation on polling and the media, stay for the Andrew Gelman reply.

He makes several good observations. In times of low polling response rates even a slight change in who picks up phone after a big event will make for an apparent shift in polling even if nothing changes, or things change in the opposite direction, in the actual electorate. And that since uncertainty is so high pundits will feel more incentives than ever to confidently "inform" readers of what this "means."
Under the current circumstances, however, [reading polls] is like weighing yourself on what is probably a worthless scale while jumping up and down like Andrew Gelman's kangaroo. [ . . . ]Here's my advice. It may sound a bit radical at first, but it's really not. Just go cold turkey in June. Unless you have some professional reason for needing to follow the polls and the resulting political commentary, don't. There will be vanishingly little real information in those articles you skip and distinguishing between the worthwhile and the worthless will be next to impossible.
but every article everywhere in many papers that I've seen for the last bunch of months says Trump wins at this point.

This is different than what the link above discusses, but I'd still say either read more & different papers, or better simply don't read stories about polls. The claim does not reflect the polling data, and there are plenty of sources reporting more accurately on it. The race is very much too close to call. We simply don't know who would win in a head-to-head matchup. In the swing states, Trump and Biden are in a statistical tie in enough states for Biden to squeak by.

I could go on for a while but unless you want a microanalysis there's no point. I will just say I'm aware of that one recent NYT-sponsored poll that looked bad and got a lot coverage and punditry: The NYT will put their own poll on the front page, of course, and since it's the NYT people will talk about it, but one outlier poll is not a basis for predicting anything.
posted by mark k at 9:59 AM on June 1 [14 favorites]


Didn’t Hitler get charged with something and put in jail before he took power?

Beer Hall Putsch. Sort of an early January 6th.
posted by SPrintF at 9:59 AM on June 1 [2 favorites]


... stay for the Andrew Gelman reply.

That was posted 5 and a half years ago? It's actually a reply to this blog post.

I do appreciate the exposure to Gelman's Kangaroo though.
posted by achrise at 10:48 AM on June 1 [2 favorites]


What I mean is that slapping pop (anti)heroes on the wrist and saying “shame on you” has a rather poor historical record of containing the impact of them and their followers. And I’m wondering if any Americans have actually put some thought into what you will actually do if he wins the election in November, and proceeds with dismantling your democracy. And the reason I called it rickety is because of its notable lack of modern checks and balances, which would’ve potentially lessened the likelihood of arriving at this situation in the first place.
posted by lastobelus at 10:55 AM on June 1 [1 favorite]


He has not been sentenced, lastobelus. No slapping yet.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:57 AM on June 1


My question stands: if he does win, and if he does proceed with dismantling American democracy – which seems extremely likely – what are you actually going to do?
Are you going to accept it as a legitimate democratic result? The people have spoken? America is not a democracy anymore?
posted by lastobelus at 11:01 AM on June 1 [3 favorites]


That was posted 5 and a half years ago? It's actually a reply to this blog post.

Huh, good catch. How bizarre.
posted by mark k at 11:12 AM on June 1 [1 favorite]


My question stands: if he does win, and if he does proceed with dismantling American democracy – which seems extremely likely – what are you actually going to do?
Are you going to accept it as a legitimate democratic result? The people have spoken? America is not a democracy anymore?


This is a wide derail from the subject of the post, but I'm sure there will be a lot of protests in the streets. Maybe some people with power in various ways have things in their back pockets that could keep him from taking office. Even if he's elected if a court were to find him to be an insurrectionist, which two have already found and one SCOTUS judgement calls him that, then maybe the 14th Amendment could come into play.

The thing is, once he's in office, he's going to start using the US military and National Guard against the citizens. Couple that with the most militarized police force in Western society and you've got a lot of dead people.

I don't know what happens. "Unprecedented" is the territory we've been in ever since the fucker won back in 2016. I don't think anyone knows. I do know that they plan on putting faggots like me into camps once he gets into office, so I'll probably take my chances with protesting.
posted by hippybear at 11:54 AM on June 1 [7 favorites]


I've been finding Jay Kuo to have good perspectives and solid data on polls and the election:

Very recent assessment of what's wrong with the NYTimes/Siena poll: Do Better, New York Times (May 14, 2024)

Status Report: About That Poll… - A new NYT/Siena poll has people freaking out again. But they shouldn’t. (March 3, 2024)


also:
The Polls Were Wrong, And other observations following Super Tuesday (March 6, 2024)

Abortion Showdowns - In the key states of Florida and Arizona, abortion is front and center again. And that’s bad news for the GOP. (May 2, 2024)

A Blowout in Ala-frikkin-bama - A huge Democratic win in a GOP-leaning district in deeply red Alabama shines a spotlight on reproductive rights and provides a national roadmap for victory (Mar 27, 2024)


and some really good info at
10 Reasons I’m Cautiously Optimistic About the Election (May 14, 2024)


(all Substack links, sorry)

tl;dr: There are some significant problems with the polls (with the NYTimes, in particular, they were polling almost entirely in English, which badly skews results for older Spanish-speaking Americans), and those toss-up polls are the ones making headlines, not the OTHER polls that show Biden up.


I agree with Kuo and others that we cannot be complacent and think the convicted felon CAN'T win, but there are many reasons to be cautiously optimistic that Biden will win, and for me - and for many people - that helps me be more engaged and active and work more to make that happen.

(And if you're looking to boost your own enthusiasm, and re-energize others you know, Jessica Craven's weekly Extra! Extra! round-up of surprisingly good news that doesn't seem to get reported is excellent. Did you know the HRC is spending millions to get Biden elected? Or that an important new gun background check law just went into effect? Or that over a million PACT Act claims have been granted for veterans? Or that the tiny Democratic majority in the Senate has just confirmed Biden's 200th judicial nominee? I sure didn't.)
posted by kristi at 11:58 AM on June 1 [16 favorites]


Don’t forget that while he was in office, many, many people refused to carry out his illegal orders (as well as just not talking to him about a lot of shit in the first place). IIRC he wanted to bomb Venezuela, and they tried once or twice to explain to him why they couldn’t do that.
posted by Melismata at 12:04 PM on June 1 [2 favorites]


Don’t forget that while he was in office, many, many people refused to carry out his illegal orders (as well as just not talking to him about a lot of shit in the first place). IIRC he wanted to bomb Venezuela, and they tried once or twice to explain to him why they couldn’t do that.

Yes, and this is where Project 2025 comes in, because they have been interviewing people for months and months to try to get as many new people ready to go to be installed as verified Trump loyalists as quickly as possible. They're going to gut the civil service and replace between 50k and 100k.

See, Trump is going to be the useful idiot puppet for the actual fascists over the Federalist Society who have been creating the Project 2025 plan.

This is absolutely real. I'm not linking but you can search and find out details for yourself. It's horrifying.
posted by hippybear at 12:09 PM on June 1 [29 favorites]


Just for the record: Long-term solitary confinement is torture even when they do it to bad people. And advocating for the use of solitary confinement hurts a whole lot of people who are not DJT.
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:11 PM on June 1 [8 favorites]


Just for the record: Long-term solitary confinement is torture even when they do it to bad people.

Yes, but convicted felon Trump's Supreme Court doesn't think that's worth talking about.

Not that we should be taking our moral lead from them, but there would be a certain justice in this case.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 12:27 PM on June 1 [1 favorite]


Mod note: Hi, several comments and responses removed. Let's move on from the 538.com/2016 US election/polls derail.

Please remember that politics are very personal, so it's a good idea to be civil when disagreeing with someone in political threads to lessen the possibility of arguments.

Finally, try and have an internal limit about how much you engage with disagreement, as it rarely changes anyone's mind and often just leads to fights.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 12:27 PM on June 1 [14 favorites]


People are talking about logistic difficulties of putting Trump in prison...I don't understand. It's easy. You put him in solitary confinement with two Secret Service agents outside his door.

As adrienneleigh said, solitary confinement is torture. You cannot torture a person just because it makes it more convenient to supervise him that way.

Additionally - things that make it hard. The secret service is supposed to protect the president. Do they protect him from correctional officers? Do they protect him from their beatings? Do they come with him to the shower? If so, are they armed? Do they have cellphones? What happens if Trump orders them to let him use their cellphones?
posted by corb at 12:43 PM on June 1 [5 favorites]


Incarcerating an ex-president would be more expensive but we don't need to pretend it's some insoluble problem. You can have him protected in an individual cell without having him in solitary.

Do they protect him from their beatings?

Yes. Why is that even a question?

What happens if Trump orders them to let him use their cellphones?

They decline. They are federal law enforcement officers, not factotums seconded to Trump to provide valet services.
posted by mark k at 12:59 PM on June 1 [19 favorites]


I mean, i don't think ex-presidents should get Secret Service protection at all, frankly. They're not kings, they're supposed to be ordinary people. They can hire their own fucking private security if they feel like they're at special risk.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:20 PM on June 1 [8 favorites]


The thing about the whole trial that really, really, bothers me is that I have to agree with the right on one really critical point: it is politically related.

Not in the sense they mean it of evil Joe Biden weaponizing law enforcement to persecute his totally innocent political opponent.

But in the sense that if Trump hadn't risen to national prominence as a politician he never would have been prosecuted. Because Trump's defenders are right: everyone does it. If he'd just stayed a blowhard D list celebrity Trump would never have been investigated and tried for his crimes. We know this because he wasn't tried or investigated before he became a politician.

We know this because of how few people are convicted, or even investigated, on white collar charges.

Does anyone actually, truly, think that there is even a single real estate developer who hasn't committed felony fraud by falsifying documents like Trump did? Anyone? Does anyone think that if the DOJ was serious about white collar crime they couldn't find hundreds of felony charges at absolutely any stockbroker, hedge fund, bank, money manager, etc?

Now, as an evil anti-capitalist leftist, I am 100% in favor of the DOJ diverting pretty close to 100% of its efforts and budget into white collar crime. But they don't.

Trump put a target on his back by being both a crook and a real estate developer (but I repeat myself). It's not wicked Joe Biden it's just a matter of visibility. If he'd kept his head down no one would have said a word.

Which is why I thik it'd be a really great idea for Biden to go all in on anti-corruption and direct the DOJ to investigate everything they can in the business sector. It'd be good policy because we need that shit cleaned up, and it'd be good politics because he could say "no, I didn't direct anyone to target Trump but I did just tell the DOJ to look for other criminals of his nature".
posted by sotonohito at 1:24 PM on June 1 [15 favorites]


Does anyone actually, truly, think that there is even a single real estate developer who hasn't committed felony fraud by falsifying documents like Trump did?

A single real estate developer? I bet there are millions of them.

I have a much more optimistic view of my fellow humans and know that many of them are good, upright people who follow the laws of their countries.
posted by hippybear at 1:27 PM on June 1 [13 favorites]


sotonohito: i agree with you for the most part, but part of the case against Trump was that he specifically did it in an attempt to influence the election. And election fraud is often (although by no means always) treated more seriously than other kinds of white-collar crime.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:30 PM on June 1 [30 favorites]


Well, both the election fraud aspect and also that NY has actually begun to tighten up on white collar crime in general. The NYC of Rudy Giuliani was deeply corrupt at every level and so was the state (which is why Giuliani's demise is no surprise at all, despite all the America's mayor BS). Over the past many years, things have changed, and the trump case is just one element of a broader pattern.
I'm not saying everything's perfect, and also I don't live in NY anymore (though my brother does), but there is a palpable difference.
posted by mumimor at 1:47 PM on June 1 [3 favorites]


It's been mentioned a couple times in this thread, but the law does not require the Secret Service to protect Trump in prison. The relevant law authorizes the government to provide Secret Service protection for ex-presidents without a time limit. Up until 2013 there was a 10 year cap. But the important thing is the law authorizes the provision of such protection, but doesn't require it.

In the event of Trump's imprisonment, the Secret Service could decide that responsibility has transferred to the DOJ and wash their hands of it. They could assign resources to protect the facility while letting the DOJ handle security inside the prison. They could coordinate with the DOJ to have a Secret Service presence inside the prison itself. We don't know, it doesn't really matter at this stage, and should have no bearing whatsoever on the decision of whether or not he gets incarcerated.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 1:47 PM on June 1 [16 favorites]


"At present, Federal mortgage fraud-related charges are pending against approximately 500 defendants around the Nation, and the FBI is working on more than 2,700 additional mortgage fraud investigations."

https://www.congress.gov/event/111th-congress/senate-event/LC4039/text

2,700 was at best 1 out of 1000 actual fraudulent mortgage applications from that f---ed up decade, but it was a start at least
posted by torokunai at 2:14 PM on June 1 [5 favorites]


Stick him in one of those empty prison buildings I read about

Not only is Epstein's old cell available ,the entire Metro Correctional Centre is empty.
posted by yyz at 3:03 PM on June 1 [4 favorites]


Aren't there secret FEMA camps all over the country, supposedly, ready to take in people the government has decided need to be rounded up?

I mean, okay, that's a conspiracy theory.

But in theory, there are plenty of ways Trump could be held. Anyone saying it isn't possible is lacking imagination and information about exactly how carceral the US is as a country.

We hold more people in custody than any other country. More than China. Which has 4x our population.
posted by hippybear at 3:29 PM on June 1 [5 favorites]


Even the solitary confinement issue is easily solvable. Just let a few dozen MAGA toadies volunteer for a year in prison with their guy, or better yet, let them pay for the privilege. You’d probably need to have a lottery due to so many people trying to get in on it. Fucked up and unprecedented, sure, but these are the times we’re living in. Let him have whatever company he wants but make the accommodations decidedly bare bones (but secure) and I’ll be fine with it.
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 3:59 PM on June 1 [1 favorite]


Seen online: On May 30, Stormy Daniels set the world record for pleasuring the most people on a single day.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:24 PM on June 1 [32 favorites]


What I take away from this verdict is that we still have a functioning judicial system, at least in places. I'm very worried about my country, to speak to the friend up-thread asking, "What are you going to do?" and the answer is that I don't really know what I as an individual or we as a country will do if Trump is elected again. But we do still have a free press, we do still have functioning judiciary, we do have functioning state governments. We do still have two major political parties and other smaller ones that it is still legal to belong to. It's still legal to demonstrate en masse to show our opinions (caveats here about un-permitted encampments on private property, a form of protest I approve of). It's still legal to form organizations for political purposes, to support causes, and to provide support and access to resources. We are not a theocracy.

I don't know what's going to happen to Trump. But I was thrilled with this verdict, in part because, even if he and his followers continue to be delusional, he is being held accountable for his actions. He was in power, and he did not succeed in becoming a dictator. And a scant few years later, he's being tried for many of his crimes in multiple places. Something important is not yet broken. Something important is still working.
posted by Well I never at 6:30 PM on June 1 [23 favorites]


“The Doubts Were Not Reasonable,” Tom Scocca, Defector, 31 May 2024
posted by ob1quixote at 6:41 PM on June 1 [4 favorites]


This music video is better late than never (Trump mashup with "I Fought the Law) : https://x.com/FallonTonight/status/1796317728959295788
posted by NotLost at 6:49 PM on June 1 [2 favorites]


sonohito: ... if Trump hadn't risen to national prominence as a politician he never would have been prosecuted. Because Trump's defenders are right: everyone does it. If he'd just stayed a blowhard D list celebrity Trump would never have been investigated and tried for his crimes. We know this because he wasn't tried or investigated before he became a politician.

Fiddling the books is usually a misdemeanour. As a politician, fiddling the books as part of an effort to suppress information that would affect the election rises to the level of a felony, and that's what was prosecuted, no? Not just the fiddle.
posted by Artful Codger at 7:07 PM on June 1 [24 favorites]


In this case, the charges were prosecuted as felonies instead of misdemeanors because the Trump DoJ and FBI intentionally dragged their feet on the necessary investigations, in order to run out the clock on the statute of limitations. But felonies have a much longer time limit in that regard, so NY worked out a path to prosecute them as felonies instead. (as best as I remember it from a tweet thread by Seth Abrahamson)
posted by rifflesby at 8:11 PM on June 1 [5 favorites]


But in the sense that if Trump hadn't risen to national prominence as a politician he never would have been prosecuted. Because Trump's defenders are right: everyone does it. If he'd just stayed a blowhard D list celebrity Trump would never have been investigated and tried for his crimes. We know this because he wasn't tried or investigated before he became a politician.

We know this because of how few people are convicted, or even investigated, on white collar charges.


I mean, there have been something like ten thousand convictions for falsifying business records... in New York alone... in just the last 8-10 years. Trump's defenders are "right" in that a lot of people have committed this crime, not just Donald Trump. They're not right in their claims that a. it hardly ever gets prosecuted or b. it's not a "real" crime. My sense is it sometimes goes unseen because, unless authorities know to look for it, it's easily missed. If the DOJ did as you suggest and launched an all-out investigation into stockbroker, hedge fund, real estate mogul, etc, I have every confidence they'd uncover a lot of this type of criminal activity that they'd otherwise not notice. But I don't think that means you need to accept the Republicans' bad faith argument that the trial/convictions are politically motivated or in any way less than legitimate. A lot of people get convicted for this crime. Some of them even get jail time. Not all, obviously, but well, name me a crime where all or even a significant majority of instances are solved/convicted/etc.

I get the general point you're making, but I think extending that level of nuance and understanding risks legitimizing bad faith talking points (and it's not like folks in the Trump camp will ever extend that same level of nuance and understanding to "the other side").
posted by Method Man at 12:04 AM on June 2 [12 favorites]


Remember it's not just "falsifying business records" it's "falsifying business records in the furtherance of another felony" that was what made it a felony rather than a misdemeanour
posted by mbo at 12:54 AM on June 2 [20 favorites]


Trump is the equivalent of the the broke guy who robs the local bank and then shows up to work the next day in a new Cadillac. Remember how in 2016 he didn't expect to win, and wasn't even prepared to do so on election night. Trump ran for president for some combination of being a racist jack off, the grift and because his bankers backers told him to and it got away from him.

If he didn't think winning would put his life under a microscope he was being stupid considering he was all over putting Clinton's and Obama's there.
posted by Mitheral at 3:50 AM on June 2 [8 favorites]


Didn’t Hitler get charged with something and put in jail before he took power? All you (America ) have done is provide fuel for the performative outrage.

Trump would be over twice Hitler's age when he went to prison. In the unlikely event he goes to jail long enough to write a book he ain't coming out to lead a government takeover. Besides not prosecuting people because they might overthrow the government is essentially conceding the government to those people.
posted by Mitheral at 3:56 AM on June 2 [20 favorites]


only about 100 trump supporters were at the courthouse when this verdict was read. knowing what was on the line, and how vocal he has been about his PERSECUTION as a POLITICAL PRISONER to all his minions, you would think that the courthouse would be a major flashpoint for any kind of violent pushback against the system. the magahats are talking a big game on tiktok but when push came to shove they just didn't show up. not trying to downplay the danger of the far-right in america but maybe this idea that the conviction will only add fuel to their fire (apart from it basically conceding the country to them, as Mitheral pointed out) is a little bit overstated.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 5:34 AM on June 2 [13 favorites]


In this case, the charges were prosecuted as felonies instead of misdemeanors because the Trump DoJ and FBI intentionally dragged their feet on the necessary investigations, in order to run out the clock on the statute of limitations. But felonies have a much longer time limit in that regard, so NY worked out a path to prosecute them as felonies instead. (as best as I remember it from a tweet thread by Seth Abrahamson)

I don't think there was an issue with statute of limitations because there was talk about whether either side would ask for the judge to let the jury vote "guilty" on the misdemeanor if they couldn't decide on the felony, and neither did. If it was barred by the statute of limitations in NY it wouldn't have even been an option.

I found this explanation of why it was easier for Alvin Bragg to bring the case plausible: Garland's DoJ didn't have any issues with statutes of limitations in 2021 ("The five-year statute of limitations on the campaign finance offense had not yet expired, so prosecution remained an option.") but the federal crimes that SDNY was looking at would have been harder to prove, and they might have had more issues with their key witness:
When it comes to the problem of absent or unreliable witnesses, though, Bragg’s office is situated differently than SDNY in important ways. Unlike the Southern District, the district attorney’s office has no policy requiring that cooperating witnesses air all their dirty laundry with prosecutors ahead of time, meaning that Bragg apparently had fewer compunctions about putting Michael Cohen on the stand. It seems that Cohen’s relationship with prosecutors in the Southern District was genuinely strained by the end: During cross-examination by defense attorney Todd Blanche, Cohen acknowledged calling the federal prosecutors, along with the judge in his federal case, “corrupt” and “fucking animals.” Maybe the DA’s office was able to get off on a better foot with their star witness...

The specific charges at issue in the state prosecution, as opposed to the would-be federal case, also make Cohen less of a potential problem for Bragg than he would have been for SDNY. A FECA case against Trump would have required a great deal of evidence about Trump’s knowledge and mental state, which—in the absence of Weisselberg—only Cohen could have provided. The business records charges under which Trump was indicted in New York, though, are much less reliant on Cohen’s testimony.
posted by BungaDunga at 7:21 AM on June 2 [7 favorites]


only about 100 trump supporters were at the courthouse when this verdict was read. knowing what was on the line, and how vocal he has been about his PERSECUTION as a POLITICAL PRISONER to all his minions, you would think that the courthouse would be a major flashpoint for any kind of violent pushback against the system. the magahats are talking a big game on tiktok but when push came to shove they just didn't show up.

Bear in mind, though:

1. The courthouse in question was in New York City, and this city simply doesn't have a huge number of Trump supporters (possibly because we've been dealing with the douchewad since the 1980s and we're all way over him).

2. The verdict was also read on a weekday, at a time when most people were at work or just getting off work. They didn't announce that "we have a verdict" until about 4:40 pm, and they were reading the verdict only a half hour later. Word may not have spread enough for his followers to get to the courthouse in time.

3. A lot of Trump's followers outside NYC flat-out HAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE NYC. Like, to the point that they wouldn't plan a visit here; we're a crime-ridden hub of snooty elitists and pervs, doncha'know.

So the sparse number of Trump supporters at the courtroom when the verdict was read may not necessarily be an accurate gauge of what his national support might be.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:23 AM on June 2 [12 favorites]


I mean, in general, the answer to the question of "why are there not more real live Trump supporters here?" is "Nobody organized it and nobody promoted it."

He's not a fucking genie who can magically create people out of thin air just by whining on social media - you wanna get a bunch of people in the same place at the same time you gotta plan for it and you gotta spread the word. You can (sometimes) do this pretty quickly (and/or do it without widespread public knowledge until the last minute) but the work has to get done. Trump's got campaign staffers to do this for his political rallies, and we know that Jan 6th had multiple groups and people organizing the rally and the riot. Lack of Trump supporters outside the courtroom (or anywhere, really) is mostly a sign that nobody with the skills, talent, or experience in organizing public gatherings is putting in the effort.

(Why nobody's putting in the effort is rather another question - my personal suspicion is it's seen as a lot of work and expense for little return. As EmpressCallipygos points out, he doesn't have many supporters in NYC, those outside NYC aren't gonna come in to the city, and a bunch of them are still in the workforce and can't just drop everything to rush to the courtroom at the last minute. It's entirely conceivable someone could've burned through hours of effort and thousands of dollars to fire up rallies outside the courtroom and wound up getting, like, another 50 people to wave signs? Bad investment.

Also also, if you're a Trump supporter, what's your incentive to show up and wave signs outside the courtroom, especially if it's gonna be a big hassle and expense? You go to the planned rallies because you know you're gonna party with thousands of other like-minded people (and there are multiple reports of the MAGAts wandering away from the current rallies during Trump's speeches - like the social aspect is more important to his followers than the man himself.) You go to DC on Jan 6th because you think there's a chance you can actually return him to power. What're you gonna do gathering on the streets of NYC? You gonna break into the courtroom and spirit him away? Punch some hippies? When you can just as easily "support" him by fucking around on social media waiting for your wife to finish making dinner? Nah, you might be a cult member but you got other shit to do, not worth the effort.)
posted by soundguy99 at 8:38 AM on June 2 [9 favorites]


Fascists do not like to gather where they will not have overwhelming numbers.
posted by Artw at 8:51 AM on June 2 [8 favorites]


How has this thread gone on so long without anybody mentioning Trump's new hairstyle?
posted by srboisvert at 9:33 AM on June 2


How has this thread gone on so long without anybody mentioning Trump's new hairstyle?

I cannot find it. Can someone post a picture? He looks like his same ridiculous haircut as always in all the pics.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:49 AM on June 2 [2 favorites]


only about 100 trump supporters were at the courthouse when this verdict was read. knowing what was on the line, and how vocal he has been about his PERSECUTION as a POLITICAL PRISONER to all his minions

There was no need for them as the primary attraction of Donald Trump is that he Never Loses. But also, they had no idea when the verdict would come.

They have time to get organized for the sentencing. I’m sure we’ll see them there in force.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:51 AM on June 2


They also don’t like situations where the police might not be on their side, though admittedly that’s 50/50 here.
posted by Artw at 9:52 AM on June 2 [2 favorites]


I’m seeing a lot of commentary on social media about how his followers saying the ultimate proof of the rigged trial is no one knows what he actually did wrong. It’s confusing to me as the charges were read in court, so how is that meant to be a reasonable defense? I mean I get it, they’re not going to shatter their worldview but it’s one of the easiest things to refute.
posted by JakeEXTREME at 12:14 PM on June 2 [8 favorites]


no one knows what he actually did wrong
Yes, this has been the main line of defense (in media, not in court) since the trial began. It makes absolutely no sense at all. But again, that is how fascism works: say something that is totally ridiculous and demand your followers repeat it.
posted by mumimor at 12:23 PM on June 2 [7 favorites]


no one knows what he actually did wrong

This is really common, and it’s based in ignorance. My dad actually said “I’ve watched a lot of Law and Order, no prosecutor works like that.” I had to explain to him that as a public defender I’ve seen a ton of prosecutions on everything he doesn’t like, and that many, many people across the nation face prosecutions on technical complaints.

Now, I actually agree that prosecutors should charge for the actual crime that they feel is a real problem, and not throw the technical book at people. But it’s not something they made up for the Trump trial; they’ve been doing that since Capone.
posted by corb at 12:27 PM on June 2 [8 favorites]


They also don’t like situations where the police might not be on their side, though admittedly that’s 50/50 here.

174 police officers were wounded on January 6. I’ve noticed that the police can get very tetchy about that sort of thing.

A few misunderstandings, a cop calls for help, and things could get very chaotic very quickly.

If the NYPD wants to get involved in a pro MAGA away, the best they can probably do is to not show up.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 12:40 PM on June 2 [2 favorites]


no one knows what he actually did wrong

“Look, I don’t know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star to secure silence over some type of alleged affair — I just, I can’t speak to that.
posted by box at 12:46 PM on June 2


Don't reimburse for it and it becomes an illegal campaign donation.
Reimburse for it properly and it becomes public, negating its whole purpose.
Create false business records / IRS forms to lie about the election-related reimbursement and you've committed this felony.

I think it's probably right and proper that there's no legit way to hide election-related hush money payments through a third party.

And it's not that complicated to describe.
posted by nobody at 1:36 PM on June 2 [24 favorites]


srboisvert is right about the hair. The alpine climber's rope throw haircut now has faded into a wispy wand of a Moe Howard middle part. He's doing more with less. Being evil is hard. He's old and he's not a healthy man. Which will no doubt morph into some sort of Weekend at Bernie's Über Alles on the principle of it only gets worse.
posted by y2karl at 2:21 PM on June 2 [4 favorites]


Yeah “fraudulant false business reporting” doesn’t seem that much of a stretch to understand unless you take some jumps of logic not to.

Which, I guess, both conservatives and the horse race media establishment are both very skilled at.
posted by Artw at 2:29 PM on June 2 [3 favorites]


My understanding is that the main crime here was the illegal campaign contribution (which is inextricably linked to the falsifying business records). Even the Republican-leaning people I know in the south are against illegal campaign contributions and big money in politics. I wish people (especially the media, sigh) would use that phrase more.
posted by kristi at 2:41 PM on June 2 [3 favorites]


The hair thing seems irrelevant but it really isn't. If we can take Trump down, like the wizard of Oz, Biden will win the election.
IMO, the problem with Biden isn't his age but his complete lack of charisma. I mean, he is almost anti charismatic. In the very specific context of Trumpism, that is his advantage. A lot of people recognize that Trump is dangerous because he is weirdly charismatic. So they vote for anti-charismatic Biden. It makes sense. We want boring, not interesting times.
On the other hand, some voters, of all ages, need to feel inspired. I don't think this is shallow or dumb. Leaders need to inspire, specially in a time where we all, across the globe need to change everything to survive. We need to feel there is a way forward, and even though Biden is doing things that are unprecedented regarding change, his lack of charisma means we don't feel it, even though we know it on an intellectual level. I think he should use younger, more charismatic surrogates more, but I am no campaign manager, and there is the obvious issue that he needs some conservative leaning independents to shift their votes, not only for the presidency but all the way down to school boards.
posted by mumimor at 2:42 PM on June 2 [1 favorite]


The alpine climber's rope throw haircut now has faded into a wispy wand of a Moe Howard middle part.

I genuinely cannot picture what this is describing. Can you post a picture that illustrates this?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:48 PM on June 2 [2 favorites]


> In the unlikely event he goes to jail long enough to write a book...

lol, can you imagine what a book Trump actually wrote on his own would be like? It would be more difficult to parse than Finnegan's Wake.
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:52 PM on June 2 [5 favorites]


I feel like a get a whiff of Moe Howard here, with the cantilevered hair, but I don't see a middle part, nor do I get the alpine rope thing.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 2:53 PM on June 2


Oh wait...nevermind...I thought Moe Howard was the Moe from the Simpsons. My picture i posted is more Moe from the Simpsons than Moe from the Three Stooges. I promise I was not being deliberately obtuse or absurd, I discovered my mistake while googling for a picture of Moe (from the simpsons) and finding instead Moe (from the stooges).
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 2:55 PM on June 2 [1 favorite]


They’re certainly all about to be real clear on if Hunter Biden filling out forms wrong being a crime, if not on if Hunter Biden is the sitting president.
posted by Artw at 3:14 PM on June 2 [3 favorites]


I thought Moe Howard was the Moe from the Simpsons.

"They used to call me Kid Gorgeous."
posted by box at 3:15 PM on June 2 [1 favorite]


Now I'm confused about which Moe we're talking about on top of STILL not getting what people are saying Trump's hair looks like now help
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:09 PM on June 2 [5 favorites]


We're talking about Mary Tyler Moe and how Trump throws his cap in the air just like her at the end of the song.
posted by hippybear at 4:11 PM on June 2 [8 favorites]


I'll just leave this hear...

Post- verdict, Trump denies he ever said "Lock Her Up."
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:34 PM on June 2 [4 favorites]


Trump did show up on Fox & Friends this weekend (youtube) with a weirdly translucent hairdo, but it didn't look that out of place for him, and most of the trial pictures are similar. I'm surprised he hasn't switched to a Don Jr. style slick-back, because when he's unintentially done it before it looked pretty decent, and it seems to be a popular right-wing hairstyle (see above video), though those are more of a pompadour than he'd be capable of.

I'm not quite sure why there wasn't a legal way to hide the payment before the election, since it was paid on October 27, 2016. That seems to be a very short period to dig into formal financial disclosures and find out it's a hush-money payment, unless they're literally required to put "hush-money payment" in the purpose box. I thought before looking into it that he could have just written a check and we wouldn't have known until after the election (maybe even quarterly reporting), but apparently the FEC has 24 or 48 hour disclosure requirements for some contributions. I'm not sure if there's something similar where the campaign committee has to disclose expense purposes immediately. Still, we know it's legal to pay for an NDA for campaign purposes, and even if it's so strict they had to immediately say it was an NDA and to whom, I'm not sure if it would have landed as a story with no other details.
posted by netowl at 5:39 PM on June 2 [2 favorites]


I was speculating that Trump's parole officer could veto which job Trump takes, like President.

Also, would Trump violate parole by hanging out with convicted criminals? Like Manafort or Bannon or Flynn or Stone.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:40 PM on June 2 [3 favorites]


Also, would Trump violate parole by hanging out with convicted criminals? Like Manafort or Bannon or Flynn or Stone.

Lest we not forget, Trump did pardon all of them... does that unwind their criminal status to where they can't use it as a parole basis? I'm guessing there isn't a lot of precedent.
posted by netowl at 5:49 PM on June 2 [2 favorites]


netowl: So... you are lacking a ton of details about this case, and it's going to be difficult for me to summarize them for you here, but I will try.

Trump did not pay Stormy Daniels directly. Michael Cohen paid her. And he paid her because the Access Hollywood tapes had come out and suddenly there was a possibility that if Daniels put her story out shortly after that, it might have tanked Trumps campaign.

So Cohen leapt into action to squash the Daniels story, mortgaging his house to cover the $130,000 required to buy and bury the story.

In order to get Cohen covered for paying for this story to be killed, the Trump Organization entered into an agreement with Cohen in which he would submit false invoices for being on retainer as an attorney and he would get monthly payments. These payments were boosted up to where the payments covered the taxes that would otherwise be taken out, and also included a bonus on top of that. Cohen was paid something over $400K for his covering that $130K payment to Daniels.

The actual crime is that Cohen, by paying Daniels for her story, was making a campaign contribution to the Trump Campaign. And it will illegally large for an individual donation and also was being covered up by being depicted as being a legal retainer to Cohen. So they were making payments to pay back a campaign donation and recording them as legal retainer, and that's the crime.

It's a bit of a technical priming, but it is actually a crime, and was determined to be thus by 12 people who sat in court every day listening to evidence. 12 people who were agreed upon by Trump's legal team during jury selection.

So... Yeah. I've not done the best summary here, but that's the bigger sweep of what went on.
posted by hippybear at 5:56 PM on June 2 [32 favorites]


“How Trump's Conviction Could Cost Him the Election,” Dan Pfeiffer, The Message Box, 30 May 2024
posted by ob1quixote at 6:06 PM on June 2 [2 favorites]


I'm annoyed by the typos in my comment above, but I think the content is still clear through context clues so I'm going to let it stand. There are three of them and they are... annoying.
posted by hippybear at 6:06 PM on June 2 [5 favorites]


I have an entirely parasocial relationship with Pfeiffer because of Crooked Media's podcasts.
posted by hippybear at 6:09 PM on June 2


We're talking about Mary Tyler Moe and how Trump throws his cap in the air just like her at the end of the song.

Love is all round him...
posted by y2karl at 7:39 PM on June 2 [1 favorite]


Something I agree with Pfeiffer about is that a lot of ground can be gained by consistently referring to "convicted felon Donald Trump." Constantly, at every turn, until even the Biden camp is tired of it. I want to be completely and thoroughly sick of that phrase by November.

I want the local newspapers saying "Convicted felon Donald Trump is coming to hold a rally in town" and I want Biden to open his debate comments with "I've never debated a convicted felon before." I want any mention of him in Congress to reference "convicted felon Donald Trump" and every newspaper to set aside some space on the front page so that headlines can always fit his full description. I want it to be the left's affectionate pet name for him.

Most importantly I don't want it to be limited to just his coverage. Every Republican running for office this year needs to carry the weight of that phrase with them. I don't want to hear "Well what did you think about the verdict?", I want to hear "Tell me about your relationship with convicted felon Donald Trump?"

Alas, this is unlikely to happen. Picking a message and sticking with it is not the left's forte. But I can dream...
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:31 PM on June 2 [10 favorites]


Picking a message and sticking with it is not the left's forte. But I can dream...

I mean, the actual Left is pretty good at it. The Democrats, however...
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:34 PM on June 2 [8 favorites]


Local TV news here in NZ just introduced an article with "Freshly convicted former president Donald Trump ...."
posted by mbo at 1:11 AM on June 3 [4 favorites]


Looking at those humiliating prostrations towards Trump from every Republican leader, I realize that they are gambling everything on a very weird old fat horse with wobbly legs. Apologize this overdone metaphor, but what I'm saying is that when they loose, they loose bigly. Nobody is going to vote for Biden to avoid Trump and then for a Republican senator or representative who has been out trumpeting their loyalty in a ridiculous disregard for facts.

So there are two directions this can take: either enough voters in the swing states vote for Trump to install a corrupt totalitarian regime in the US, or the Republican Party collapses completely and the Democrats can start rebuilding society, including the court-system. My question is: how can highly educated, intelligent Republicans with decades of political experience want any of these outcomes?

And also, I was going to post this in the Stasi thread, but I've been mulling over it for days, so now it goes here:
When I was young, and there were still many totalitarian countries here in Europe, I had a lot of friends who really enjoyed going there, to Spain, Portugal, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. Later, as travel became cheaper, Syria became a popular destination for the same folks, and Cuba of course. Now I guess Dubai is the main attraction for this cohort, along with a few other places. Some people really like authoritarianism on a sort of touristic level. The things they claimed to like and the things they actually liked were all very Spiesserisch (German for petit-bourgeois, kind of, I don't know if there is an English word). They like what they perceive as law and order. They like that their money brings them more stuff like food and drinks and services and living spaces than at home. Some men like the attention of women seeking marriage as a way out.

But deep down, they know the "law and order" is lawless, and the reason they feel rich there is that they earn more in a regulated Western democracy. They do want free and fair elections. They do want access to real educations and healthcare, including reproductive rights. Almost none of my totalitarian-curious friends have voted for totalitarian parties, left or right. So when and why do some people cross that line, which is happening all over the world these days? or back to the question above: why are some people willing to gamble a whole lifetime of values and freedoms for outcomes that can only be bad? I know some are thinking they can handle it and come out in some sort of advantageous situation, like that terrible Vance person or shit Mike Johnson. And some are batshit insane like Taylor Greene. But others know better, and still they prostrate, like Mitt Romney.
posted by mumimor at 4:11 AM on June 3 [9 favorites]


Saw this in a reddit thread, a few of these I had forgotton, but seeing them all together now is a powerful reminder of what the Trump party is made of:

Donald Trump is a felon.

His former personal attorney and fixer Michael Cohen is a felon.

His former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates is a felon.

His former chief strategist Steve Bannon is a felon.

His former national security advisor Michael Flynn is a felon.

His former director of trade Peter Navarro is a felon.

His former foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulus is a felon.

Most of his fake electors are indicted for felonies.

His former campaign chairman Paul Manafort is a pardoned felon (pardoned by Trump).
posted by p3t3 at 4:50 AM on June 3 [14 favorites]


And the self-mutilation squad on the D side has started their "maybe they might like me if I do this" campaign, with Dean Phillips (D-Minn and former challenger against Biden for the Presidential nomination before a spanking).

House Democrat Urges New York Governor To Pardon Trump 'For The Good Of The Country'

Hochul, for her part, already rejected it, with her statement saying that "Today’s verdict reaffirms that no one is above the law..."
posted by mephron at 4:51 AM on June 3 [6 favorites]


mumimor I'm not sure the whole Biden old, Trump crook/crazy, bit actually makes much difference.

Thing is, it seems as if the American public and press has a sort of set closure, or set limiter, issue. If Biden is old, then that occupies all the space available for processing the concept of old in a Presidential context. No other candidate CAN be old, because Biden has occupied that spot.

On the Republican side this has frustration because despite their attempts to paint Biden as a crook, it works the other way too. There is only room in the crook set for one Presidential candidate, and Trump is occupying that spot.

And at the end of the day, everyone already knows how they're going to vote and there's almost nothing that will change their mind. The only real question is turnout.

Biden has anti-charisma, but Roe and the fear of Trump work against that to try to motivate their base. Trump is a crook, and fear of Communazi Muslim atheist UN Black Panthers in helicopters carrying LGBT ecofreaks with electric cars and gas stove bans is their main hope for motivating their base.

The real question is how much will each side lean into their motivation strategy, and we already know that too: the Republicans will go 110% balls to the wall all in on theirs and shriek about Communazi LGBT ecofreaks from every rooftop at maximum volume. And the Democrats won't want to upset racist white Conservatives so they'll tread lightly and try to downplay all the things they could use to motivate their base except maybe, possibly, hinting around Trump as a nutbag crook.

But if Biden has campaign ads about Roe, or the Supreme Court, I'll be staggered.

Maybe I'm just in my bubble, but I'd imagine an ad campaign featuring Scalia, Thomas, and Kavanaugh would be really fucking fastiastic to drive up the hate and get Democrats voting again.

Video of Kavanaugh weeping, red faced, and screaming during his confirmation, voice over.

"They put an alcoholic rapist on the court."

Video of Scalia intercut with his various flags.

"They put a man who endorses insurrection on the court."

Video of Thomas intercut with bags of cash and big RV's and pix of him with his rich buddies.

"They put an easily bribed sellout on the court."

Video of a tombstone and a pregnant woman.

"And they stole your rights."

"I'm Joe Biden and I approve this message"

End.
posted by sotonohito at 5:25 AM on June 3 [8 favorites]


scalia is long dead, so i’m guessing you mean alito. insert sopranos screenshot: it’s anti italian discrimination!
posted by dis_integration at 5:37 AM on June 3 [9 favorites]


Should Trump rallies warn potential attendees on probation that they cannot consort with a known felon?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:36 AM on June 3 [8 favorites]


Some people really like authoritarianism on a sort of touristic level.

A colleague mentioned that he has acquaintances who are worried about Trump winning again and creeping authoritarianism and all that, so they're actually in the process of leaving the US.

For Singapore.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 6:37 AM on June 3 [18 favorites]


Trump is not a crook, he’s a convicted felon.

All politicians are crooks. We vote for them anyway because we don’t have a choice, but we also have kind of a warm fuzzy relationship with it. It’s something our crotchety old grandpa used to say all the time. It’s just part of life.

A convicted felon, however, is something else. They are the real bogeyman. Even though you know intellectually that it doesn’t automatically mean "scary", the phrase gives you pause every time you have to say it.

Calling him a “crook“ normalizes the situation. Calling him a convicted felon does not.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:57 AM on June 3 [3 favorites]


Or if you want to look at it another way, all politicians are crooks but only the stupid ones get caught. Trump got caught.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:59 AM on June 3


I see the news is hardcore back on trying to make me give a shit about Hunter Biden.

I will never give a shit about Hunter Biden, throw him in a wood chipper for all I care.
posted by Artw at 7:00 AM on June 3 [13 favorites]


all politicians are crooks

This is a horrible position, and in fact is part of what enabled Trump's rise in the first place, as the argument that "all politicians are crooks" allowed his outright criminality to be dismissed. It is yet again cynicism cosplaying as wisdom.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:17 AM on June 3 [41 favorites]


I see that a great many of convicted felon Donald Trump's supporters are displaying upside-down flags in their profiles and on their property. I imagine this is so, when Cheeto Mussolini is fitted with his fascist inversion boots, the flags will appear to him the right way up.
posted by JohnFromGR at 7:21 AM on June 3 [2 favorites]


Or if you want to look at it another way, all politicians are crooks but only the stupid ones get caught.

"He's not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured." -- Donald J. Trump on John McCain, 2015

"Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” -- Donald J. Trump on visiting the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery, near Paris, in 2018

Someone please make an ad connecting these dots.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:24 AM on June 3 [8 favorites]


Trump clearly hates and disdains soldiers, veterans and cops, but millions of them will still vote for him and be grateful for the opportunity to do so.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:54 AM on June 3 [4 favorites]


>all politicians are crooks

This is a horrible position, and in fact is part of what enabled Trump's rise in the first place, as the argument that "all politicians are crooks" allowed his outright criminality to be dismissed.


Exactly so. If you want to push the levers of politics, focus on what people believe and not on petty things like facts.

One of the things that makes this situation ideal is that people who prefer to not get their hands dirty can use a phrase that is simultaneously accurate and also a scary buzzword intended to push peoples’ buttons. People can tell themselves they’re being Right and True, when really they’re just scaring people in a good cause.

It is yet again cynicism cosplaying as wisdom.

Yup. The world has millions of cynical people and about five wise ones. Which voting bloc do you want to sway?
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:59 AM on June 3 [1 favorite]


My point is that people believe "all politicians are crooks" because people like you cynically reinforce that position, and that it does real, genuine damage to our system of governance. It is not a message we should be reinforcing because of that damage it does, and arguing that we should utilize it to "push on the levers of politics" is (at least to me) taking a sledgehammer to the base of our system of governance and arguing that it's okay, because you're "scaring people in a good cause."

Again, one of the things that has enabled the subject of the thread is this cynical attitude causing people to dismiss his actually ahistoric criminality and dishonesty as "business as usual", which is why I have to question if you're even getting the results you want from embracing cynicism. But even if you were, the damage cynicism is doing is a steep price.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:11 AM on June 3 [18 favorites]


All politicians are crooks. We vote for them anyway because we don’t have a choice, but we also have kind of a warm fuzzy relationship with it. It’s something our crotchety old grandpa used to say all the time. It’s just part of life.

I cannot speak to your polity but where I come from, some politicians seem abhorrent to me for any number of reasons and likely a few are "crooks" in whatever way we mean the word, but I know too many people who put their name forward and run in elections and sometimes win elections and I can't say it strongly enough: "all politicians are crooks" is not just factually wrong it's insipid and that type of insipidity is the problem. Trump disappears today and the insipidity is still there, lurking behind countless YT and TikToks, blaring from the mouths of both genuine idiots and the dangerously disingenuous, and I cannot fathom why you'd join their ranks
posted by elkevelvet at 8:24 AM on June 3 [26 favorites]


In my opinion, we shouldn't get too personal about this. That's what makes the politics threads horrible to be in.

BUT, in my experience, the ratio of cynical people to wise and open-minded is about the opposite of Tell me No Lies' experience. It can be because we live in different countries or move in different circles. Regardless of what our personal experiences are, it is a fact (as much as social science can deal with facts) that societies based on trust and mutual respect are safer and more prosperous. So we should work for that. Authoritarians are against that concept, they prefer cynicism and corruption, and openly accept the consequence that the general population will have worse lives on most measures, like economy, health, safety etc.
posted by mumimor at 8:25 AM on June 3 [9 favorites]


I don't get why people are thinking prison would be such a logistical hurdle. It's not like he'd be in gen pop at Angola or somewhere. That's the kind of place he belongs to be, of course, given he's a rapist, but he wasn't convicted of rape. He was convicted of white collar crime, so he'd go where white collar criminals go, namely club fed with the tennis courts and the chefs and the functioning HVAC and all that. Why couldn't the secret svc hang out there for their eight-hour shifts and continue to bring him his diet Cokes as usual? Or build a special presidents' pokey? Looks like as we spiral down towards banana republic-dom we might be going to start having a bunch of felonious potuses. Prison 1 could have replica Lincoln bedrooms and all the gold toilets anyone could want: fine! Just get this guy off the street before he makes good on that 5th Avenue promise.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:06 AM on June 3 [4 favorites]


I do not believe that any of these politicians are crooks. The world needs more like them.
posted by flabdablet at 9:19 AM on June 3 [12 favorites]


In my opinion, we shouldn't get too personal about this. That's what makes the politics threads horrible to be in.

Agreed.

ratio of cynical people to wise and open-minded

I think (but am not sure) that we all agree that a general attitude that politicians are crooks is a major part of what has allowed this situation to develop. Right now a large part of the country is on board with a felon being president. I feel like all of those people count in the cynical category, and that the left isn't immune to ignoring 'flaws' either.

I completely understand that people wish it wasn't this way, but corruption in politics (and related, peoples' conviction that politics is corrupt) goes way way back. Like "dawn of time" back. Undoubtedly pushing back against that tide helps make the world a better place, but I don't foresee it going away any time soon.

At this moment in time, I think trying to do politics without recognizing that widespread belief is folly. Meeting those people on their own ground gives them tacit support for their view, it is counterproductive to the goal of removing corruption from politics, and it involves a moral taint that will stain you forever. And if it prevents the United States from falling into a fascist dictatorship then I will take that. Better to compromise my morals now than wait for a civil war to do it.

This is my view of it, but I have no animus for the views of others. I think that in the long run a moral victory is a noble goal; I just think that at the moment a dirty political victory is necessary if that's ever going to happen.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:35 AM on June 3 [2 favorites]


I don't understand how "all politicians are corrupt" helps? Isn't that basically saying Trump's crimes aren't so bad?
posted by joannemerriam at 9:38 AM on June 3 [3 favorites]


I don't understand how "all politicians are corrupt" helps? Isn't that basically saying Trump's crimes aren't so bad?

...but some politicians are more corrupt than others.

(Literature doesn't repeat, but it rhymes)
posted by tzikeh at 9:44 AM on June 3 [1 favorite]


Related MetaTalk: Is "please no name calling" a big ask?
posted by Klipspringer at 9:49 AM on June 3 [3 favorites]


When I was very young I believed that there were "good people" and "evil people" and it was easy to tell the difference, and I was obviously one of the good people.

When I was a teenager I read novels written from the point of view of German soldiers in WWII and Confederate soldiers in the US civil war, and learned more about what made people commit murder or acts of terrorism, and I realized that it was not so simple. I started to believe that no one (except a few outliers maybe) was really "evil," just mistaken, or trapped by circumstance. This also made me worry that I might be "evil" from someone else's point of view, or in the view of history, and just not realize it.

And I held onto that belief and anxiety into adulthood, until I read some profiles of Paul Manafort.

Manafort says things like "The technical term for what we do and what law firms, associations and professional groups do is 'lobbying,' For purposes of today, I will admit that, in a narrow sense, some people might term it 'influence peddling.'"

He seems to believe that "everyone does this kind of thing" and he's no worse than anyone else.

But "this kind of thing" was accepting money from dictators to help cover up their use of torture and the killings they ordered. From the Atlantic article in the "profiles" link:
All of the money Congress began spending on anti-communist proxies represented a vast opportunity. Iron-fisted dictators and scruffy commandants around the world hoped for a share of the largesse. To get it, they needed help refining their image, so that Congress wouldn’t look too hard at their less-than-liberal tendencies. Other lobbyists sought out authoritarian clients, but none did so with the focused intensity of Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly. The firm would arrange for image-buffing interviews on American news programs; it would enlist allies in Congress to unleash money. Back home, it would help regimes acquire the whiff of democratic legitimacy that would bolster their standing in Washington.
You read the hacked text messages from his daughters and you see Manafort helping plan their wedding receptions, dealing with alcohol dependency and depression, trying to get back together with their mom. You know. Human. But in one of the posted text messages, Andrea Manafort wrote to her sister in 2015, “Don’t fool yourself. The money we have is blood money.”

All of that is to say that I think Trump (and Manafort and Bannon and all the other guys around him) have helped me come to a new understanding of good and evil.

I think nobody believes themselves to be especially evil. But plenty of people know that what they are doing is wrong, and just believe themselves to be "no more evil than everybody else" and then are just really damn cynical about how evil everybody else is. They think everyone would lie and steal and cheat and commit violence for their own advantage if they got the chance, and if you don't do those things, someone else will. You won't be making the world a better place, just making your own place in it worse.

So anyway, that helps with my anxiety about whether I am, in fact, one of the baddies. Since 2016 I have been on guard against cynicism in my own mind. Because I think everybody else is just as bad or even worse is what the real baddies (who do exist, though they are still very human) tell themselves. And if I find myself thinking that, I again worry that I might just be one of them.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:01 AM on June 3 [33 favorites]


My point is that people believe "all politicians are crooks" because people like you cynically reinforce that position, and that it does real, genuine damage to our system of governance. It is not a message we should be reinforcing because of that damage it does,

Absolutely fucking not.

All politicians are crooks by my standards. They are fundamentally people who are dishonest about their intentions so that they will get elected. Not a single politician in this country or any other is openly honest about their priorities, which donors they are changing their stances to suck up to, or which group of people they have already decided won’t vote for them and they don’t have to care about. Every single politician will take a billionaire’s call before they take a small donor with 20$ in their pocket. Whether or not they think it influences their policies, they place themselves in the room with people they think are good for them, not for the polity.

That is just the truth. If anything does real damage to our system of governance it is politicians choosing to be crooks, and our system of campaign financing incentivizing them to be crooks. And if you want people like me to stop talking about politicians being crooks, then you need to create that system so that they’re not.
posted by corb at 10:08 AM on June 3 [5 favorites]


I can't help but think: who here has run for public office? so we could qualify things I suppose and maybe it's just people who run for federal office in the US, maybe it's just them who are crooks?

All politicians are crooks by my standards

Surely you might qualify this statement. I'd say we're onto a derail but under the circumstances, this seems appropriate to the thread topic
posted by elkevelvet at 10:15 AM on June 3 [5 favorites]


Corb, what would a system of campaign financing that doesn't force politicians to be "crooks" look like?

Seems to me that, unless we want to roll back free speech rights and say that no one can spend money campaigning on behalf of any candidate or issue (which would affect activists and community organizers and protestors as well), then billionaires are always going to be able to spend more money attempting to persuade others to their point of view (honestly or dishonestly) than anyone else.

It's already illegal for them to coordinate with political candidates when they decide how to spend their money on stuff like this. Before Citizens United it was also illegal for them to mention a candidate's name in messaging that they had independently paid for, but they still made it plenty clear which candidate they supported without mentioning the names.

I don't think we can "campaign finance reform" our way out of billionaires having a lot of power and political influence. By definition, they control a lot of resources, and that inherently gives them influence, without politicians having to be crooked at all.

I think it would maybe take taxing billionaires out of existence to really solve the problem of billionaire political influence, but the practically of that solution really is a topic for another thread.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:24 AM on June 3 [2 favorites]


They are fundamentally people who are dishonest about their intentions so that they will get elected.

This isn't true, though. Political scientists have done research on this, and in general they've found that politicians do actually push the policies that they campaign on. (Whether or not that should terrify you is left as an exercise for the reader.)

Every single politician will take a billionaire’s call before they take a small donor with 20$ in their pocket.

This is because politicians, like the rest of us, live in a society. The reality is that our society sees wealth as a signal for acumen, even when it's not (see also: every Musk thread over the past few years), and politicians are sadly not immune to that signaling.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:35 AM on June 3 [3 favorites]


None of this matters because the message that it was all a witch trial to 'get' our heroic Trump is already locking in. The cowards in leadership of the Democratic Party have ceded the field to the magas.

The pathetic move to think the major media (already in the tank for Trump) will make this a big deal is so wrongheaded that is amazes - 5 republicans on the Sunday propaganda shows, no democrats.

Schumer, Durbin, and the execrable useless outwitted Renfield running the Justice Department (Merrick Garland) are supine in the extreme. Maybe the leadership should get out there and talk a little more about the chips act, that'll guarantee re-election.

And as everyone on the left knows, the only hope the dems have is that Roe continues to drive victories, but when's the last time you heard about it in the mainstream? The last time a major news outlet talk about the nightmare impacts of the Hobbs decision? Dem leadership doesn't give a shit. They're too busy saving Johnson's ass (the same Johnson who is calling on the US Supreme Court to step in (which they have no authority to do, so they will anyway - major questions doctrine here we come).

Trump always skates by, and he'll do so again cause the dem leadership cannot do a simple thing like call him "Convicted Felon Donald Trump" every single time his name comes up. I hate Trump and the magas because of what they are doing, and going to do after the election. I despise the democratic leadership because they are so cowardly they're all but guaranteeing the Convict will be installed again as president.
posted by WatTylerJr at 1:27 PM on June 3 [3 favorites]


That's funny WattylerJr, because I skated through the Sunday shows except Fox, and a couple of morning shows today, and I thought there were lots of fine Democratic spokespeople who were really good at repeating the "convicted felon" line. And Republicans making fools of themselves. There was also George Conway calling a Republican pundit a liar, for what it's worth (not that much in my view). But in summation, I actually think this is harming Trump.

That doesn't mean he can't recover before November, and also now everyone is all het up about the Hunter Biden case, like idiots.
posted by mumimor at 1:37 PM on June 3 [10 favorites]


For those in the "all politicians are crooks" camp -- how local are you willing to apply that? Your town council? Your school board? Your water district? Is a fire commissioner inherently a crook?
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:17 PM on June 3 [5 favorites]


Not necessarily in that camp, and there are probably some exceptions I’m not thinking of in the moment, but I would say that anyone who reaches the level of nationally-elected office, and a big majority of people in Congress or statewide executive offices, maybe not Bernie Sanders or Mary Peltola or Maria Good-Government (her wife is an ethics professor at an HBCU) but most of them, are at least a little bit of a crook.
posted by box at 4:54 PM on June 3 [1 favorite]


There's plenty more. The Squad as mentioned above. Katie Porter. Elizabeth Warren. Yes, mostly women. Stacey Abrams (would make a great senator).
posted by Glinn at 5:10 PM on June 3 [1 favorite]


If we’re making a good-eggs-in-national-politics list I’m adding Wyden.
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 5:45 PM on June 3


>Corb, what would a system of campaign financing that doesn't force politicians to be "crooks" look like?

ban political ad buys across all media.
posted by torokunai at 6:02 PM on June 3 [2 favorites]


“Trump Wishes His Trial Were Rigged,” [Gift] Adam Serwer, The Atlantic, 31 May 2024

“The Moral Authorities,” A.R. Moxon, The Reframe, 02 June 2024

“Why Trump’s Conviction Does Not Complicate My Abolitionist Politics,” Kelly Hayes, Truthout, 03 June 2024
posted by ob1quixote at 7:11 PM on June 3 [3 favorites]


If politicians can't advertise in any media how exactly are they supposed to tell people what their policies are? Are we just supposed to randomly vote for people? Or just vote by party? Of course the party can't tell you what their policies are either, nor can anyone let you know if those politicians vote for the policies they claim to support.

A blanket political ad ban seems like a non starter.
posted by Justinian at 8:16 PM on June 3 [2 favorites]


I suppose our notion of community and social cohesion has degraded so much that the only way to imagine a politician can communicate with the electorate is through a broadcast medium. but then again, political ads are banned in the UK and they still elect absolute bozos without hesitation, so in the end i guess it's all the same
posted by dis_integration at 8:43 PM on June 3 [4 favorites]


Oh, of course witness tampering.

Propublica: "Nine witnesses in the criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have received significant financial benefits, including large raises from his campaign, severance packages, new jobs, and a grant of shares and cash from Trump’s media company."
posted by nobody at 8:45 PM on June 3 [6 favorites]


If politicians can't advertise in any media how exactly are they supposed to tell people what their policies are? Are we just supposed to randomly vote for people? Or just vote by party? Of course the party can't tell you what their policies are either, nor can anyone let you know if those politicians vote for the policies they claim to support.

A blanket political ad ban seems like a non starter.


I think it was no paid ads, not no ads. So the idea being every candidate could have X amount of ad time. As for other ways of telling people what their policies are, well it doesn't seem like most political ads do that (make policy proposals).

One alternative for telling people what policies a politican supports is a written platform then can put on their web site, hand out, reference in news interviews, when it was released the media would analyze it like any other press release etc. etc. Most parties in Canada publish their platforms at election time. And while there ARE paid ads, there are limits on campaign spending, including by "third parties" (i.e. non-candidates). I think there are countries with no paid ads. A lot of time when Americans say "but how could that possibly work?" the answer is as simple as looking to places elsewhere where it's already happening.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:49 PM on June 3 [5 favorites]


the answer is as simple as looking to places elsewhere where it's already happening.

And does it work? I mean are politicians less corrupt in those places? And do people believe they are less corrupt?

The problem I see with "just ban paid political advertising all together" is 1) rich people will just buy printing presses and print their own mailers, buy buildings and put their own billboards on them, get their friends who own TV stations to do "informative" stories about them ala Fox News and Sinclair...If you are rich, you don't need to pay media owners for ad space in their media. You and your friends ARE media owners.

And even if you somehow manage to outlaw that (the government telling people what signs they can put on their own property? Telling newspapers what stories they can run?) You have problem number 2) "issues" ads. You don't mention a candidate's name but you run lots of scary ads about open borders. Or baby killers.

Want to ban public displays about issues? You'll be jailing protesters and activists if you do.

And if you somehow managed to ban all public messaging about political candidates or issues... Probably the main outcome would be that most people would not vote. They would not know anything about the candidates or issues, and would feel no sense of urgency. They would piously tell themselves they should look up the candidates' websites at some point, and then forget, and then not vote, the same way they do now with local elections. (Quick - who represents you in your city council?)

I actually don't believe any country has managed to implement that, but if they had, I think many people would STILL believe local politicians were crooks - plenty of people do believe that about their city council, even if they can't name any of them.

And maybe they would be right, because in their low turnout world, there'd be very little scrutiny from voters, no political opponents holding your feet to the fire, and a small bloc of voters could easily swing elections and have the politicians owe them...
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:09 PM on June 3


Well, I guess I was wrong with my bold prediction that he wouldn't be convicted of anything. I'm happy to be wrong on this. I still don't see him doing time and I still think this will further help his chances of being elected, because now he has actual 'proof' that Biden is using his power as President to try and stop that happening.
posted by dg at 11:53 PM on June 3




for some people it seems there is no narrative that doesn't somehow benefit trump. like, if he'd been acquitted, no one would be saying how biden had dodged a bullet because the 'not guilty' verdict makes it clear that biden isn't using the presidency to persecute his political rivals. the narrative would be that trump was found not guilty despite biden's sinister machinations

if trump violently shit his pants in a very public and very graphic fashion, there would be a solid core of people who would come out in rabid favor of pants-shitting and, indeed, had always been fervent believers in the benefits of having one's very own shit in one's very own pants, and then they would try to convince you that the entire episode actually improved trump's electoral prospects because a contingent of undecided voters finally decided trump was their guy by the hours of media coverage showing the slow brown stain gradually appearing and enlarging during an adderall-fueled rant about the irish, probably, while liquid pooled at his feet and his crowd of 350 supporters at the flying j truckstop looked on, first in confusion, then in jubilant applause
posted by logicpunk at 6:59 AM on June 4 [12 favorites]


there would be a solid core of people who would come out in rabid favor of pants-shitting


I love a hypothetical.
posted by phunniemee at 7:04 AM on June 4 [3 favorites]


And does it work? I mean are politicians less corrupt in those places? And do people believe they are less corrupt?

I would say, and others can chime in, that elections are seen as less money-driven. Generally the narrative about political corruption is more about politicians passing laws that benefit their friends (And yes, donors), but since donors are limited in how much they are allowed to give it's not like anyone is giving millions of dollars to a candidate.

The problem I see with "just ban paid political advertising all together" is 1) rich people will just buy printing presses and print their own mailers, buy buildings and put their own billboards on them, get their friends who own TV stations to do "informative" stories about them ala Fox News and Sinclair...If you are rich, you don't need to pay media owners for ad space in their media. You and your friends ARE media owners.

Buying a printing press or using your printing press time would both be considered campaign spending, I would think (just like paying off someone to not say you had an affair is campaign spending). As far as I know you can put any sign you want on your own property, but paying people to print up a bunch of signs might be campaign spending. I'm not sure when it crosses the line....OK, I looked it up. In Ontario, it's $500 per year by your or your organization within the 12 months before the election. If you're going to spend more than that you need to register as a third-party advertiser and follow all the rules for that.

"issues" ads. You don't mention a candidate's name but you run lots of scary ads about open borders. Or baby killers.

Yeah, that's political advertising and you have to register as a third party politiical advertising if you're going to do it and you can't spend more than $122K per election or more than $4.8K in a single riding (constituency) Here's the definition Ontario Uses:

Political advertising is advertising in any medium with the purpose of promoting or opposing any registered party or its leader or the election of a registered candidate to the Ontario Legislature. This includes advertising that
takes a position on an issue that can reasonably be regarded as closely associated with a registered party or its leader or a registered candidate. This includes but is not limited to advertisements appearing in any broadcast, print, or online. Refer to the Political Advertising section in this handbook for more information.


You definitely do see lots of adds that do not mention a candidate but instead say "Ask your candidate if they support universal childcare" or "Ontario Needs More Homes for People, Not Birds" (ok, not that one phrased like that, but trying to come up with an example of what the right would do -- they would frame anti-environmental development policies as creating housing in a housing crisis). I feel like at least half of ads like this are run by unions.

Conrad Black, who somehow is allowed to live in Canada and I can't figure out how, owns newspapers and does write editorials supporting conservative candidates and run conservative-leaning newspapers in general. But other newspapers and news sources lean left. I don't think I've ever seen anything that seems to cross the line into sneaky political-advertising-but-it's-not-advertising-because-I-own-this. Looking at the guide, I see it's against the law to charge political ads more or less than other ads (so no, you can't just run an ad for free in your own newspaper because that would be charging less).

This is the guide Ontario has for third party advertisers. Note that if you're clutching pearls about people having to register to advertising, lobbyists already have to register. Third party advertisers are just lobbyists trying to influence voters instead of politicians.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:13 AM on June 4 [2 favorites]


Deleting my technical arguments about paying for printing presses and whether it's an "ad" at all if you own the paper... to get to the heart of the matter:

Political advertising is advertising in any medium

Anything can be a medium. You can put on a parade. You can plant trees in a way that spells out messages from the air. You can parachute into an event and print messages on your parachute, and cry out through a bullhorn on the way down. You can make "documentaries" and try to distribute them to theaters (like "Citizens United" did) and make a bunch of other non-political documentaries to establish your bonafides as a real film maker and not just a political actor (as Citizens United also did.) You can start rumors. You can run "polls" with leading questions. You can put up "right to work" messaging in the businesses you own. Whatever.

There's just not a technical, legal solution to the fact that billionaires have a lot of money, and therefore a lot of power. And if you try to make it really impossible for them to express their political views, you're going to make it impossible for everyone else too.

I'd be fine with putting more restrictions on political ads that are identifiable as political ads, but billionaires are still going to have too much influence, as witness the fact that Ontario is not the progressive promised land. It certainly won't hurt, but I really don't think it will help that much either.

What might help is a lot of regular people getting involved in political activism as well, marching in parades, holding home made signs, writing GOTV postcards, knocking on doors. And running for office.

But nobody's going to do that stuff if they think "all politicians are crooks"... They just give up and yield *all* political power to the billionaires instead.
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:35 AM on June 4 [2 favorites]


Meanwhile, "Multiple Trump Witnesses Have Received Significant Financial Benefits From His Businesses, Campaign", ProPublica (Robert Faturechi, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski):
Nine witnesses in the criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have received significant financial benefits, including large raises from his campaign, severance packages, new jobs, and a grant of shares and cash from Trump’s media company.

The benefits have flowed from Trump’s businesses and campaign committees, according to a ProPublica analysis of public disclosures, court records and securities filings. One campaign aide had his average monthly pay double, from $26,000 to $53,500. Another employee got a $2 million severance package barring him from voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement. And one of the campaign’s top officials had her daughter hired onto the campaign staff, where she is now the fourth-highest-paid employee.
Incredible that it's legal for a severance package to bar voluntary cooperation with law enforcement. That seems like the kind of contractual provision that should be void as contrary to public policy.
posted by jedicus at 7:43 AM on June 4 [13 favorites]


There's just not a technical, legal solution to the fact that billionaires have a lot of money, and therefore a lot of power.

Sure there is. It's called taxation.
posted by flabdablet at 7:45 AM on June 4 [15 favorites]


Coincidentally…

Republicans are getting ready to fast-track the extension of the Trump tax cuts through the reconciliation process if they win big in November.

Nearly seven years after the GOP used budget reconciliation to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the party is gearing up to use the same maneuver to renew key provisions set to expire in 2026.


Part of me wonders how much the world going to shit in the last eight years is down to that change alone.
posted by Artw at 7:51 AM on June 4 [2 favorites]


There's just not a technical, legal solution to the fact that billionaires have a lot of money, and therefore a lot of power. And if you try to make it really impossible for them to express their political views, you're going to make it impossible for everyone else too.

But it's not making it impossible for them to express their political views. It's limiting how much and how they can spend money to do so. I mean if they might well be able to spend a billion dollars making a movie (i have no idea if the movie-MAKING part counts as spending). They just can't pay any more than $122K per year to have the movie shown.

And Ontario is definitely not a progressive utopia. The point of limiting political advertising is not to make a progressive utopia, it's to make sure that there's less possibility of people using outrageous sums of money to disproportionately influence elections. That there are still ways for billionaires to express their political views is a feature not a bug -- everyone gets to express their political views -- if someone wants to parachute into an event while yelling things on a bullhorn, then so long as it's consistent with the spending limits, relevant aviation, safety, and public-peace laws, I have no issue with that and I don't see why anyone would. I'm totally not getting why "anything can be a medium" is some sort of gotcha. Yes, anything is a medium. Register; don't spend more than $122K, and put it in your spending report at the end of the election period.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:56 AM on June 4 [4 favorites]


I'm totally not getting why "anything can be a medium" is some sort of gotcha.

Because the ads won't be ads. They'll be interviews with Dough Ford (leaving that typo in) and other Fuckingtory politicians about "important events of the day". They'll be stories that about how some policy is succeeding or failing or here's this social problem or whatever.

Edit: Or, in a more UK context, banning ads is entirely pointless unless your ad legislation also burns down the Daily Mail
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:18 AM on June 4 [4 favorites]


From what I've seen these activities happen I America anyways independent of restrictions on spending.
posted by Mitheral at 8:28 AM on June 4


Because the ads won't be ads. They'll be interviews with Dough Ford (leaving that typo in) and other Fuckingtory politicians about "important events of the day". They'll be stories that about how some policy is succeeding or failing or here's this social problem or whatever.

Sure. Media outlets are allowed to do interviews with politicians and soft-ball the politicians they support. Pretty sure that even where unlimited ads are allowed they already do this. So you can have either softball interviews and AND unlimited campaign spending or you can have softball interviews WITHOUT unlimited campaign spending. Which do you think gives billionnaires more influence.

Like do you really think Conrad Black and the Thompson family (who do own media) have the same level of influence on Canadian politics as US Billionaires, including those who don't even own any media outlets do on US politics? I don't know much about UK politics but does the owner of the Daily Mail have the same sway as US Billionnaires? Would allowing unlimited ad spending reduce their influence?

It seems like the argument is basically: But if we do something to solve that problem, this other problem that we already have would still exist.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:31 AM on June 4 [5 favorites]


So you can have either softball interviews and AND unlimited campaign spending or you can have softball interviews WITHOUT unlimited campaign spending. Which do you think gives billionnaires more influence.

The first, because they're the ones who own the press.

Conrad Black and the owners of the Daily Mail and Rupert Murdoch have far more influence than let's say Bill Gates or Michael Dell or the various Waltonses.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 9:11 AM on June 4 [1 favorite]


The first, because they're the ones who own the press.

Ok, I'm confused. If you think having unlimited spending allows billionaires more influence than not having unlimited spending, why wouldn't it be a help to limit spending? Also, you might also consider the Koch family who despite being in non-media industries have a lot of influence thanks to unlimited spending.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:16 AM on June 4 [3 favorites]


I honestly can't parse what you're trying to say.

There is no point in limiting spending on formal campaign advertising because the rich and powerful have many means to push the electorate towards their favored outcomes that would never reasonably count as advertising.

All the limiting spending on formal advertising means is that Fox News gets to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on but the other side only has $122000 to make their case unless they happen to own their own media outlet.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 9:56 AM on June 4


Because then it's a one-front media war instead of a multi-front media war?
posted by mazola at 10:00 AM on June 4


Alternately: better isn't perfect, but it's better.
posted by mazola at 10:01 AM on June 4 [4 favorites]


but the other side only has $122000 to make their case unless they happen to own their own media outlet

But they're already going on and on and on on Fox news. And the other side would have has $122000 per person or organization to spend plus their own media to go on and on and on in the other direction if they so choose. I mean isn't this space filled by MSNBC in the US? Can't they go on and on and on without it counting as advertising? I think the point, as Mazola said, is better isn't perfect but it's better.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:08 PM on June 4 [1 favorite]


Like I said - no harm in stricter campaign finance laws, and probably some good.

But the original assertion was "all politicians are crooks because our campaign finance laws force them to be."

And I don't think that's right. I don't think all politicians are crooks, and if they were, I don't think fixing campaign finance laws would make them not crooks (crooks break laws anyway.)

I think it's not because of campaign finance laws allowing them to "buy" politicians that billionaires have so much power. They have power by virtue of being billionaires. That's what money is - control of resources you can use to do things. Money is power, in and of itself.

Some politicians may be corrupt, but at least we can vote them out. We don't get to vote for billionaires.

Please let's put a little more faith in government, in democracy, which is to say, in elected leaders, because they're really our only defense against unelected oligarchs controlling everything.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:21 PM on June 4 [13 favorites]


Some politicians may be corrupt, but at least we can vote them out.

I mostly agree with everything you say with the exception of the quote above. I can argue that gerrymandering is a huge issue. As parties in partisan states draw more and more partisan districts, it makes it harder to vote anyone out.
posted by terrapin at 2:16 PM on June 4 [2 favorites]


There's just not a technical, legal solution to the fact that billionaires have a lot of money, and therefore a lot of power.
Sure there is. It's called taxation.

In theory, yes. Unfortunately, the billionaires control the only people who could introduce a fairer tax system. They also control most of the messaging that tells people how to think. I haven't seen any of these advocating to tax the rich.

As parties in partisan states draw more and more partisan districts, it makes it harder to vote anyone out.
If only there were a way to remove electoral districts from political tampering. I don't know, maybe an independent body that decides such things based on ensuring the fairest possible representation. I guess that would never work, though.
posted by dg at 3:45 PM on June 4 [3 favorites]


The real problem is we don’t tax the rich enough. We need a tax that will punish this outsized political spending, so they do less of it.
posted by interogative mood at 5:15 PM on June 4 [1 favorite]


The fun thing about that ProPublica article, is that it just laid out who has likely been bribed. I think the feds now are looking at these people.
posted by baegucb at 7:19 PM on June 4 [2 favorites]


This ProPublica story got me down another memory lane rabbit hole of when Trump payed off Pam Bondi, Florida AG, via 25k donation in 2013 to stay out of the Trump University litigation. I had forgotten that she then went on to help him as a defense attorney in the first impeachment case, and moreover, don't think I knew the final twist in the 25M settlement that Trump owed for the University scam was not even payed by him according to Wikipedia, but rather by casino co-owner Phil Ruffin who apparently claims the 28M he gave Trump was back-pay for services.

The rich need to be taxed more but also fined more apparently to have it make any real impact against their criming.
posted by p3t3 at 9:05 PM on June 4 [15 favorites]


From Teflon Don to T'felon Don over the course of a single afternoon.

Odd that -- one thing he is not is a Vulcan. Perhaps a tad Andorian in the hair but Jabba the Hutt in all other regards.
posted by y2karl at 12:24 AM on June 5 [1 favorite]


Unfortunately, the billionaires control the only people who could introduce a fairer tax system. They also control most of the messaging that tells people how to think.

After being repeatedly caught red-handed, there's only so much that It Wasn't Me, It Was Them can achieve regardless of how loud it gets yelled.

Sure, it's been working well for TFG so far, but it stopped working for SBF and it's even starting to look a bit iffy for Elon. I wouldn't put my faith in it lasting out the century.
posted by flabdablet at 2:56 AM on June 5 [4 favorites]


They have power by virtue of being billionaires. That's what money is - control of resources you can use to do things. Money is power, in and of itself.

Wealth is control over resources you can use to do things i.e. assets. Money is but one of many mechanisms by which the wealthy express and exert power. If money were power in and of itself, spending it would reduce the power of the spender which clearly it does not; when the wealthy spend money they spend it on assets. For the wealthy, a lack of money is merely a temporary liquidity issue.

It's to the advantage of the wealthy to keep wealth and money conflated in public discourse, but the distinction is one worth keeping clear in one's own thinking.
posted by flabdablet at 3:24 AM on June 5 [5 favorites]


Paraphrasing Colbert from last night (who happens to be a mixture of Colby and camembert):
Wisconsin indicted Chesebro. How mad do you have to make Wisconsin to indict someone with cheese in his name?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:38 AM on June 5 [9 favorites]


Hang on a second:

All politicians are crooks by my standards. They are fundamentally people who are dishonest about their intentions so that they will get elected. Not a single politician in this country or any other is openly honest about their priorities, which donors they are changing their stances to suck up to, or which group of people they have already decided won’t vote for them and they don’t have to care about.

Corb, I personally know someone who went into state politics. He started in local politics, very quickly became the First Selectman (which is New England-speak for "Mayor"), then went on to the state legislature for several years. He is now retired from politics after serving for 20 years.

And I knew him for ten or so years before he even went into politics. He truly was as genuine in his intent as he professed to be - his record was so clean that during his initial run for First Selectman, the opposition party was forced to write to his high school to ask about his attendance record there because they couldn't find any more recent dirt on him. (They couldn't find anything there either.) He was not beholden to any donors, partly because he was a lottery winner and chose to use his winnings doing something productive.

....Can you explain how this person fits into your "standards"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:34 AM on June 6 [14 favorites]


The Shadow of the Mob -- John Ganz on Trumpism and its connections (and resemblances) to organized crime.
posted by mittens at 6:47 AM on June 6 [7 favorites]


> The rich need to be taxed more but also fined more apparently to have it make any real impact against their criming.

And audited (not just for taxes)! Famed balloonist Cory Doctorow's Martin Hench Novels feature a forensic accountant superhero who runs around defeating villains by tallying up columns of numbers. (the 1st novel is also anti-cryptocurrency in a delicious way)

The Trump Org was brought down by accounting. More, please!

The collapse of Arthur Andersen following Enron & Worldcom gave the DOJ and SEC a distaste for the corporate death penalty because of collateral damage, but perhaps the damage to society will finally be weighed justly against that & we can take down some more or split up & nationalize the abusive monopolies.
posted by ASCII Costanza head at 12:07 PM on June 8 [4 favorites]


Wisconsin indicted Chesebro. How mad do you have to make Wisconsin to indict someone with cheese in his name?

As a Wisconsinite, I had the highest hopes that Chesebro was intentionally working from the inside to take everyone down, always presenting as a simple purveyor of cheese. The reality of the situation was more complex
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 11:57 AM on June 10 [3 favorites]


It's about time.
posted by y2karl at 8:48 AM on June 17 [3 favorites]


It's about time.
posted by y2karl at 8:48 AM on June 17 [2 favorites +] [⚑]


cueing NYTimes editorial about Biden's heavy-handed tactics in 3,2,...
posted by From Bklyn at 11:43 AM on June 17




our chief weapons are:

1. fear of the future

2. surprise at current events

3. a ruthless devotion to The Dope
posted by snuffleupagus at 2:18 PM on June 17 [1 favorite]


I see....
posted by y2karl at 2:40 PM on June 17


Does anyone actually, truly, think that there is even a single real estate developer who hasn't committed felony fraud by falsifying documents like Trump did? Anyone? Does anyone think that if the DOJ was serious about white collar crime they couldn't find hundreds of felony charges at absolutely any stockbroker, hedge fund, bank, money manager, etc?

Real estate developers who hire CPAs to provide their financial statements are more often than not going to get a hard no and/or fired as clients if they ask for fraudulent financial statements. I mean, they can provide false data to the CPA preparing the statements and then hire a different CPA to produce their tax returns, but that's some serious effort with potential to go awry. I think there's a reason Trump didn't have a CPA as his CFO.
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:51 PM on June 18 [1 favorite]


If he'd just stayed a blowhard D list celebrity Trump would never have been investigated and tried for his crimes. We know this because he wasn't tried or investigated before he became a politician.

Racial bias in housing, 1973 (settled), labor violations in 1980 (settled)--the change isn't that Citizen Trump's crimes weren't investigated, it's that Politician Trump thinks he's above the law.
posted by box at 3:16 PM on June 18 [5 favorites]


the change isn't that Citizen Trump's crimes weren't investigated, it's that Politician Trump thinks he's above the law.

I mean, the other reason Citizen Trump wasn't prosecuted before is that he repeatedly flipped on his co-defendants, testifying against them and co-operating with the FBI in exchange for immunity.

You can get away with a lot of criminal activity if you're willing to sell out your partners afterward. Back then they were willing to use him to get to the "big fish" in the mafia, I guess. Now he's the big fish.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:42 PM on June 18 [3 favorites]


Does anyone actually, truly, think that there is even a single real estate developer who hasn't committed felony fraud by falsifying documents like Trump did? Anyone? Does anyone think that if the DOJ was serious about white collar crime they couldn't find hundreds of felony charges at absolutely any stockbroker, hedge fund, bank, money manager, etc

Yes, and I know this from having worked in finance for nine years (with three of those nine years in the real estate investment division of a corporate bank to boot). The finance industry takes felony fraud very, very seriously, to the point that everyone - even low-on-the-totem-pole people like me - has to go through an annual compliance training module designed to spell out exactly what you can and can't do.

Now, I'm not saying that fraud doesn't exist in this industry, but it's not the vast and rampant universally-corrupt industry you're implying it is. You'll find people who sometimes come right up to the edge of fraud, or have personal priorities that are a bit wack, but when it comes to actual fraud, that's not "everyone". And the cases you're hearing about are arguably thanks to the DOJ taking things seriously.

I'm also not saying that there aren't shitty landlords, hedge funds, banks, or money managers, but they are likely just....shitty, as opposed to felons. And being shitty isn't a felony.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:37 AM on June 19 [6 favorites]


Does anyone actually, truly, think that there is even a single real estate developer who hasn't committed felony fraud by falsifying documents like Trump did? Anyone? Does anyone think that if the DOJ was serious about white collar crime they couldn't find hundreds of felony charges at absolutely any stockbroker, hedge fund, bank, money manager, etc

Looking in from outside of the US (and having done business with Americans), it's my observation that in the US, the entrepreneur, the self-made person, the [low-paid wage-earner] who succeeds in elevating themselves to [well-off person] are revered archetypes, and laws and mythology (the "American Dream") are both structured to encourage or at least not impede people in that pursuit.

It's also my observation that when the average American detects crime, fraud or cheating in the pursuit of wealth, they lose their shit, and it's zealously prosecuted. So, reluctantly (cos we agree that the pursuit of wealth at all costs is itself problematic), I don't think that fraud is as rampant as you suggest.
posted by Artful Codger at 7:18 AM on June 19


« Older disquieting images that just feel 'off'   |   Not an accurate depiction of the fur trade Newer »


You are not currently logged in. Log in or create a new account to post comments.