U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 09/05/2024 at 17:11, Maple Leaf said:

Sorry @Ked.  I wasn't aware that you'd asked me a question.  I missed that.  Apologies.

 

The latest poll numbers I've been able to find, from February, indicate that the Dems are losing ground with some Black and Hispanic voters.  Why that's the case I don't know.  My guess is that they feel that they and their families would be better off with a Trump administration; in other words, it's about economics.  I certainly don't think that they're "dumb, white racists" (your words).

 

One stat which surprises me is that more Catholics will vote for Trump.  Go figure.  Trump is Christian in name only, while Biden is a devout, practicing Catholic.

 

The situation is the US is a puzzle.  According to a 100 Presidential Scholars, Trump was the worst Prez in American history, yet he has a good chance of winning in November.

 

I'm still trying to pull my head out of my arse, as you suggest. 

 

 

 

IIRC Biden won something like 85% of Black voters, which is a huge margin even for a Democrat. Some of the loss seems to be a bit of regression to the mean. There's always been a conservative streak in a section of the Black community, and why wouldn't there be? But every time there starts to be any movement among Black voters towards the GOP they seem to let the howling racists out again. At this point they've basically decided there's more to gain by catering to white nationalists in the US than to Black people. And unfortunately, on raw numbers, they're not wrong.

 

On 09/05/2024 at 20:04, Ked said:

Biden is seen along with the political class of US politics for what they are imo.

And the dressing up.of that lot as somehow preferable to Trump on morality simply doesn't wash.

It's a farce.

And it's bewildering to me how anyone can be more angry at Trump than others.

 

 

Mate I have a fair amount of respect for your consistency on this but it's also a bit of head-in-the-ground stuff. I did not want Biden as the Democratic nominee and I have a laundry list of complains but they're nothing, absolutely nothing compared to the sheer weaponized malice, incompetence, and narcissism that was the Trump admin.

 

Actually great US Presidents are either minuscule in number or non-existent, depending on how narrowly you define it. The greatest had critical flaws that left hard legacies for the country. The worst were catastrophic. Biden isn't among the greatest. But Trump was easily the worst ever and there's nobody close.

 

On 10/05/2024 at 14:45, Hansel said:

Did Trump Strorm out of court?

Saw this on FB

 

 

Occupy Democrats is nothing but a shitposting account that's probably for harvesting addresses. They care about retweets/shares/whatever and nothing else, particularly accuracy.

 

10 hours ago, Lone Striker said:

Indeed.  The similarity between the RNC's lurch to Trumpism in the U.S   and the Tory Party's lurch to Boris Johnson in the UK in 2018/19  is startling.   2 complete buffoons who (for some bizarre  reason) successfully managed to con millions of voters into believing they were truthful geniuses fit to lead them to better things.

 

Both with enormous egos , caring only for what they can grift for themselves and their wealthy cronies  from the adventure.

 

 

 

The common line between them to me is the mortal wound that was dealt to neoliberalism in 2008. Both conservative parties across the pond had a lot of constituencies in them but the economic and intellectual core was still the remnant of Reaganism and Thatcherism, respectively. 2008 blew that sky high, and in the UK the austerity programs created so much pain there wasn't much left.

 

The neoliberals in both countries were wrong and bad for our economies and terrible for workers, but they at least kept a muzzle on the worst parts of the right. It took a few years, but after 2008 it became increasingly clear that the old GOP/Tory economic programs were intellectually bankrupt. That created a power vacuum and the populist nationalists rushed in to fill the void.

[JFK-1]

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Cohen on the stand today. The biggest criticism I've heard of the prosecution is that if your case relies on a jury believing that Michael Cohen is being honest, your case is sunk.

 

I'm just watching from the armchair so no idea how much of a problem this is.

[Lovecraft]

26 minutes ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

Cohen on the stand today. The biggest criticism I've heard of the prosecution is that if your case relies on a jury believing that Michael Cohen is being honest, your case is sunk.

 

I'm just watching from the armchair so no idea how much of a problem this is.

Not if the rest of the evidence backs up not just what he says - but also the Trump loyal people already questioned.

 

If it was just him, I can't see the Jury buying what he says.

 

I think the prosecution have already built up the trail using emails and testimony from Trump's own people.  It's why 2 of them were in tears on the stand.

 

 

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

17 minutes ago, Lovecraft said:

Not if the rest of the evidence backs up not just what he says - but also the Trump loyal people already questioned.

 

If it was just him, I can't see the Jury buying what he says.

 

I think the prosecution have already built up the trail using emails and testimony from Trump's own people.  It's why 2 of them were in tears on the stand.

 

Yeah it's possible their case just relies on him coloring in the lines and giving a sense of what it was like to work under Trump, not sworn factual statements. Bragg has seemed pretty on top of things so far.

[Seymour M Hersh]

[Watt-Zeefuik]

34 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Yeah, absolutely terrible what's happened to crime NYC under 12 years of Democratic mayorships. Now granted, this was the trend before Bragg took over . . .

 

So what's happened since he's been in office?

 

"According to NYPD statistics, overall crime was down in New York City in 2023 by just under a percentage point compared to 2022. Both years saw more reported crimes compared to 2020 and 2021, but rates are lower compared to 2019, before COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.

 

Murders are down 11.9%, with 386 far this year, as opposed to 438 murders in 2022. And rapes, burglaries and shootings have all seen double-digit percentage point decreases since 2022."

 

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/nyc-crime-rate-2023-statistics

[Maple Leaf]

I see that John Oliver is calling out that embarrassment of a Supreme Court judge, Clarence Thomas, who recently called Washington "hideous".

 

Thomas has no shame and his acceptance of generous gifts from wealthy conservatives while a SCOTUS judge is a matter of record.  He has also failed to recuse himself from hearing cases where his wife has had an involvement.  Oliver is offering him a million dollars a year for life if he just resigns from the Supreme Court and gets to feck out of "hideous" Washington. A generous offer.

 

Thomas, of course, will decline.  He's likely to be well taken care of by his conservative friends. He has served them well.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/12/opinions/clarence-thomas-hideous-dc-john-oliver-rv-offer-obeidallah/index.html

[Ulysses]

9 hours ago, Lovecraft said:

Not if the rest of the evidence backs up not just what he says - but also the Trump loyal people already questioned.

 

If it was just him, I can't see the Jury buying what he says.

 

I think the prosecution have already built up the trail using emails and testimony from Trump's own people.  It's why 2 of them were in tears on the stand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Just following a couple of live blogs, it sounds like the prosecution had a very good day with Cohen. They've put all the ducks in a row at this point.

 

Of course the big question remaining is what's going to happen to Cohen under cross from the defence. I'm expecting it to be brutal as they try to use Cohen's credibility, ahem, "issues" to tear his testimony apart.

[JFK-1]

12 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

Yeah it's possible their case just relies on him coloring in the lines and giving a sense of what it was like to work under Trump, not sworn factual statements. Bragg has seemed pretty on top of things so far.

According to Glenn Kirschner that’s exactly what’s going on, they don’t even really need Cohen. He’s simply one more link in an evidentiary chain, things like verifying he was present during certain discussions.

 

Kirschner actually said someplace that they could have rested their case without Cohen and still got a conviction the evidence is so compelling. 

[JFK-1]

Excellent critique of the major US news providers from Bill Maher. For one thing news, even in the US, used to be a public service not a nice little earner.

 

Bill Maher provides a few rules of thumb for trying to follow the news in our modern age.  

 

 

[Lovecraft]

8 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

😆

[JFK-1]

18 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

Cohen on the stand today. The biggest criticism I've heard of the prosecution is that if your case relies on a jury believing that Michael Cohen is being honest, your case is sunk.

 

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell has a daily press seat in the courtroom. He gives a vivid description of how Cohen presented himself to the jury including the fact Cohen is a lawyer, probably mixed with lawyers most of his life and knows a thing or two about how to effectively present himself to a jury during 6 hours of testimony.

 

Lawrence opined that Cohen made a connection with the jury which is obviously important, turned and looked directly at them anytime he spoke. And seemingly humbled himself while describing his previous devotion to Trump as ego driven.

 

I didn't know Cohen had been on a list of potential candidates for Whitehouse Chief Of Staff which he had requested Trump to do while conceding he knew he was entirely unqualified for the position and didn't actually want it. He just wanted it on his CV so to speak that he had been considered for the role.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell describes how Michael Cohen was “a different person” than he’s been in the past on the witness stand testifying in Donald Trump’s hush money trial.

 

 

 

[Footballfirst]

Michael Cohen will be the prosecution's final witness in the hush money trial. His cross examination will start immediately after lunch (2pm/7pm).

[Ked]

Trumps winning this.

And there's no point in pointing out why on this thread.

[Bigsmak]

1 hour ago, Ked said:

Trumps winning this.

And there's no point in pointing out why on this thread.

 

Winning the election or the criminal trials? 

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, Bigsmak said:

 

Winning the election or the criminal trials? 

There's a good chance Trump will win the election, that's the way the polls are leaning, and all it will take is one Trump cultist to get a hung jury on the trial.

 

Take your pick.

[il Duce McTarkin]

2 hours ago, Bigsmak said:

 

Winning the election or the criminal trials? 

 

Both.

[Seymour M Hersh]

5 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

There's a good chance Trump will win the election, that's the way the polls are leaning, and all it will take is one Trump cultist to get a hung jury on the trial.

 

Take your pick.

 

 

[Ulysses]

[Maple Leaf]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Yeah, but, Biden's old.

[Seymour M Hersh]

4 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Yeah, but, Biden's old.

 

A liar and a plagiarist as well don't forget. 

[Mikey1874]

Trump will be back in his happy place sacking people again. 

2. 

   Phil McCausland

   Reporting from court

   Todd Blanche stumbles here in court, after accidentally bringing up the incorrect evidence. He had to apologise for the error, and now his questioning is interrupted by the prosecutor‘s objection.

   Trump has reportedly been unhappy with his lead lawyer, according to US media outlets, and would like him to be more aggressive.

   If true, Blanche’s slow start likely won’t make his client happy.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Blanche has finally figured out some exhibits that pass muster and has managed to introduce Cohen both lying in prior investigations (which he's absolutely admitted to) and bits of his podcast where he's said he wants revenge on Trump.

 

This was always coming. The question is whether Cohen being seen as honest (which he won't be) is critical to the case.

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

Blanche has finally figured out some exhibits that pass muster and has managed to introduce Cohen both lying in prior investigations (which he's absolutely admitted to) and bits of his podcast where he's said he wants revenge on Trump.

 

This was always coming. The question is whether Cohen being seen as honest (which he won't be) is critical to the case.

 

Was the Prosecution's call to call Cohen to be a witness so they think the jury can be persuaded. 

 

The facts of the case are the documents mainly. Plus the principle of the con of 'legal expenses' which is evidenced by nearly everything.

Edited May 16 by Mikey1874

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

 

Was the Prosecution's call to call Cohen to be a witness so they think the jury can be persuaded. 

 

Clearly, but I've seen a lot of other prosecutors question that move.

 

I think they've been really savvy in how they built the evidence to walk the jury right up to Trump's guilt, just using Cohen to testify to Trump's state of mind and business practice MO. But I'm not a lawyer and TBH I don't really understand the details of the NY state law he's being prosecuted under here, so I have no idea if the jury will buy it or not.

[Footballfirst]

1 hour ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

Clearly, but I've seen a lot of other prosecutors question that move.

 

I think they've been really savvy in how they built the evidence to walk the jury right up to Trump's guilt, just using Cohen to testify to Trump's state of mind and business practice MO. But I'm not a lawyer and TBH I don't really understand the details of the NY state law he's being prosecuted under here, so I have no idea if the jury will buy it or not.

The prosecution knew that Cohen's credibility was always going to be questioned, so rather than have the defence explore all those lies, the prosecution got in there first and had Cohen admit to all those lies (which he claimed were to protect Trump). That has left the defence struggling to undermine his credibility.

 

The prosecution had already established all the evidential trail in documents, texts and emails, so Cohen's testimony was only corroboration.  The defence has yet to get to that aspect of the evidence. 

Edited May 16 by Footballfirst

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

The prosecution knew that Cohen's credibility was always going to be questioned, so rather than have the defence explore all those lies, the prosecution got in there first and had Cohen admit to all those lies (which he claimed were to protect Trump). That has left the defence struggling to undermine his credibility.

 

The prosecution had already established all the evidential trail in documents, texts and emails, so Cohen's testimony was only corroboration.  The defence has yet to get to that aspect of the evidence. 

 

Yep. It's like Blanche is doing nothing but trying to bury the case in an avalanche of talking about all of the myriad ways that Cohen is sleazy.

 

Which TBF is Trump's MO anyway. As Steve Bannon said early on, flood the zone with shit.

[Ked]

3 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

The prosecution knew that Cohen's credibility was always going to be questioned, so rather than have the defence explore all those lies, the prosecution got in there first and had Cohen admit to all those lies (which he claimed were to protect Trump). That has left the defence struggling to undermine his credibility.

 

The prosecution had already established all the evidential trail in documents, texts and emails, so Cohen's testimony was only corroboration.  The defence has yet to get to that aspect of the evidence. 

Trump will win any appeal even if found guilty.

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

16 minutes ago, Ked said:

Trump will win any appeal even if found guilty.

 

 

Must be nice having a crystal ball.

[Ked]

42 minutes ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

Must be nice having a crystal ball.

The judge misdirected the jury.

Game over buddy.

 

[Ked]

43 minutes ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

Must be nice having a crystal ball.

President Trump .

In reality it could be President Ked .

I like any President could tinker sorry I like any western leader could tinker round the edges.

But really we don't live in democracy we live in controlled 2 choice meaningless crumbs of the table.

 

It's the pretence that irks voters in the US.

And I think that's a reason for Trumps voter growth amongst minority voters.

 

 

 

[Ked]

Now.

The question is the propaganda.

I often get accused of social media fed posting.

It's hilarious to hear .

 

Given the global monopoly .

[Footballfirst]

Defence expected to finish with their witnesses on Monday (Trump apparently still considering whether or not to testify), Judge has asked both sides to prepare their closing arguments for Tuesday.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

24 minutes ago, Ked said:

The judge misdirected the jury.

Game over buddy.

 

 

Highly debatable. And even if he wins appeal, all he gets is a retrial.

 

At this stage, no one knows what will happen the rest of the trial, what the verdict will be, who the appellate panel will be, what grounds it will be appealed on, and how they will view the jury instructions. There's no shortage of legal commentary on the case from former prosecutors and defence attorneys wafting about the US right now, and you're the first I've seen to be certain he's misdirected the jury. Even if you're right and some legal minds see it that way, there's no guarantee that the judges on the appellate panel will too.

 

Merchan from everything I've read seems highly regarded in New York so I doubt his instructions would be deemed inappropriate on any minor technicality.

 

The biggest case I've seen for a mistrial so far was the appeal from the Trump attorneys that Daniels' testimony had been predjudicial on matters outside the concerns of the case, and Merchan's response was spot on—that's the defence's job to object to, and they didn't.

[Ked]

12 minutes ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

Highly debatable. And even if he wins appeal, all he gets is a retrial.

 

At this stage, no one knows what will happen the rest of the trial, what the verdict will be, who the appellate panel will be, what grounds it will be appealed on, and how they will view the jury instructions. There's no shortage of legal commentary on the case from former prosecutors and defence attorneys wafting about the US right now, and you're the first I've seen to be certain he's misdirected the jury. Even if you're right and some legal minds see it that way, there's no guarantee that the judges on the appellate panel will too.

 

Merchan from everything I've read seems highly regarded in New York so I doubt his instructions would be deemed inappropriate on any minor technicality.

 

The biggest case I've seen for a mistrial so far was the appeal from the Trump attorneys that Daniels' testimony had been predjudicial on matters outside the concerns of the case, and Merchan's response was spot on—that's the defence's job to object to, and they didn't.

It's a farcical prosecution that has guarenteed the re election of Trump.

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

15 minutes ago, Ked said:

It's a farcical prosecution that has guarenteed the re election of Trump.

 

 

Poll just came out today showing that the public now approves of the prosecution by double digits and over 50%, a significant boost since before the trial when just a narrow plurality approved.

[JFK-1]

So it's being reported Biden taunted Trump into a debate and in fact two debates which Trump reportedly accepted, what an idiot.  I will believe it when I see it but I hope it does happen.

 

I'm thinking team Trump will manufacture some excuse to dodge it because they have to know he's a total disaster waiting to happen. That would be a double diaper event for all of them. Who knows, might even deliberately say something that gets him canned just to then squeal they jailed me to stop me slaughtering Biden.

 

Seth takes a closer look at Trump immediately accepting Biden's proposal for two debates and a bunch of MAGA weirdos and wannabe running mates traveling to New York to appear with Trump at his criminal trial.

 

 

 

[JFK-1]

May 15, 2024
Hear directly from former Donald Trump supporters who have decided to change their vote in the 2024 presidential election. From ethical concerns to fears about democracy, these voters share their reasons for voting AGAINST Trump this year.

 

 

Chapters:

 

00:06 - Jim (Georgia)

00:35 - Chris (Florida)

00:52 - Tom (Wisconsin)

02:24 - Chuck (Nebraska)

2:54 - Doneetsa (Minnesota)

04:03 - Ted (Tennessee)

04:47 - George (Utah)

06:07 - Hank (Tennessee)

07:43 - Alan (Alabama)

09:46 - Ahsaf (California)

10:15 - Brenda (Arizona)

11:53 - Andrew (North Carolina)

13:05 - Bennett (Pennsylvania)

14:17 - Carol (Texas)

15:34 - Chuck (Georgia)

16:56 - Cynthia (Pennsylvania)

17:39 - Craig (New Jersey)

19:04 - Donna (Tennessee)

[Cade]

One Supreme Court Judge's wife helped organise Jan 6th.

One Supreme Court Judge's wife flew a "stop the steal" flag outside their house.

 

Nothing to see here, move along please.

 

[JFK-1]

6 hours ago, Cade said:

One Supreme Court Judge's wife flew a "stop the steal" flag outside their house.

 

This gets more absurd, the flag flying wife, the wife of Alito, "briefly" flew that flag but he says it was nothing to do with him  and it wasn't a political statement. She did it in response to a neighbour flying a flag insulting to Trump, he says.

 

Now I don't know what makes that non political and especially so since at that very moment there were motions around the veracity of the election going through the court.

And even putting aside how entirely inappropriate it is, what are these people? Functioning rational adults or thin skinned juveniles, like Trump? Incidentally "briefly" was days.

Edited May 18 by JFK-1

[RobboM]

This is a long (very long!) analysis of the Trump defence strategy from a former defence attorney.
His argument is along the lines that the public approach is to deflect focus from the fact this is a simple case around Falsification of Business Records and turn it into a hush money or political scandal. On the stand the defence team are obviously trying to discredit Cohen but carefully placing him in situations alongside people like Trump's personal bodyguard and Trump's former executive Allan Weisellberg. He thinks Trump won't testify himself but these two, as Trump loyalists, will "provide" testimony countering Cohen.

https://x.com/SethAbramson/status/1791200413749817367

[Boof]

Can the prosecution call on Trump to testify?

[Mikey1874]

10 minutes ago, Boof said:

Can the prosecution call on Trump to testify?

 

No

[Lone Striker]

13 hours ago, RobboM said:

This is a long (very long!) analysis of the Trump defence strategy from a former defence attorney.
His argument is along the lines that the public approach is to deflect focus from the fact this is a simple case around Falsification of Business Records and turn it into a hush money or political scandal. On the stand the defence team are obviously trying to discredit Cohen but carefully placing him in situations alongside people like Trump's personal bodyguard and Trump's former executive Allan Weisellberg. He thinks Trump won't testify himself but these two, as Trump loyalists, will "provide" testimony countering Cohen.

https://x.com/SethAbramson/status/1791200413749817367

How would associating Cohen with Weiselberg help the defence case ?  Weiselberg's already pled guilty to various financial crimes, did prison time, then pled guilty to perjury and did more prison time.   

 

Are they actually willing to paint a picture of ALL Trump's inner circle as being liars and criminals just to discredit Cohen - who has already done prison time for financial crimes -  in the hope that the jury will identify Trump as the only non-criminal ?   

 

 

 

 

[JFK-1]

1 hour ago, Lone Striker said:

How would associating Cohen with Weiselberg help the defence case ?  Weiselberg's already pled guilty to various financial crimes, did prison time, then pled guilty to perjury and did more prison time.   

 

Are they actually willing to paint a picture of ALL Trump's inner circle as being liars and criminals just to discredit Cohen - who has already done prison time for financial crimes -  in the hope that the jury will identify Trump as the only non-criminal ?

Funny isn’t it. Trump is surrounded by criminals all criming away all the time but poor Trump knows nothing about it. Maybe he fell asleep or was on a diaper change when it all went down.

[RobboM]

8 hours ago, Lone Striker said:

How would associating Cohen with Weiselberg help the defence case ?  Weiselberg's already pled guilty to various financial crimes, did prison time, then pled guilty to perjury and did more prison time.   

 

Are they actually willing to paint a picture of ALL Trump's inner circle as being liars and criminals just to discredit Cohen - who has already done prison time for financial crimes -  in the hope that the jury will identify Trump as the only non-criminal ?   

 

 

 

 

Cohen is the prosecution's chief witness. If they can show 1 lie in his testimony then his entire evidence can be disregarded. The defence team can show with Weiselberg "look we've also got a convicted fraudster but he says it didn't happen" , which convicted fraudster do you believe? Trump would be perfectly happy for just one person on the jury to say they are all as bad as each other and refuse to convict.

[Lone Striker]

9 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

Funny isn’t it. Trump is surrounded by criminals all criming away all the time but poor Trump knows nothing about it. Maybe he fell asleep or was on a diaper change when it all went down.

🤣

2 hours ago, RobboM said:

Cohen is the prosecution's chief witness. If they can show 1 lie in his testimony then his entire evidence can be disregarded. The defence team can show with Weiselberg "look we've also got a convicted fraudster but he says it didn't happen" , which convicted fraudster do you believe? Trump would be perfectly happy for just one person on the jury to say they are all as bad as each other and refuse to convict.

If the aim is to have the jury think they're all as bad as each other (which they probably are), the logical conclusion would be that Trump is equally as bad since he's the boss.     Its a bonkers idea, especially  since there seems to be a  lot of other paper evidence of  money changing hands that hasn't been been proven to be legal services".  Plus Stormy's testimony that she received a pay-off (presumably also visible on her bank account).

 

Blanche has been even worse than Habba in terms of being able to schmooze the jury with reasoned argument.   Opening the cross-exam of Cohen by being angry at him for bad-mouthing him (Blanche) was a bizarre tactic - if it actually was a tactic -  probably more like an unhinged under-pressure lawyer unable to stop himself from having a go at a convicted lawyer who got paid more than him.

[Cade]

Rudy Giuliani finally got served his papers in the Jan 6th case.

 

He had taunted the judge on social media saying that the authorities only had until the next morning to find him and serve him otherwise he'd get away with it.

Unfortunately for him, this was the day of his 80th birthday and he had thrown a big party attended by the who's who of far-right bams in America.

He was served his papers at that party, in front of all of them.

 

Happy birthday ya dick.