President Biden really really needs to meet with the press and make a casual remark that he thinks Donald Trump will decline to testify at his trial because he has a loose mouth and it would be too dangerous for him. Nothing overdone, mind you. Not "He's too much of a coward to testify." Just a brief remark that Trump probably won't testify, and that's fine since it's his constitutional right.
Needless to say, this will almost guarantee that Trump testifies, which I would like to see because (a) I don't like Trump and (b) it would be entertaining as hell.
If Biden comments on the New York case, that will validate MAGA-land's contention that he's behind the prosecution. That's what Trump has been saying for months about all the trials. If it has to be done, maybe it's better if a surrogate (Kamala Harris?) talks about it.
Not at all. Biden can do that subtly as Kevin says. My own critique is that "entertaining as hell" is Trump's strength, not his weakness.
No, I think Biden should stay clear of all things entertaining, because he certainly is not that, and concentrate on policy wonk stuff in his debates with Trump so people will see what an utter bore the latter actually is behind his undeserved aura of sex, business and religion.
there is a reason why trump's lawyers will do everything short of tying him to his chair to keep him off the witness stand. you've heard the cliche, "shooting fish in the barrel" ... that's exactly what prosecutors will be doing on cross if trump testifies. besides the lies that will flow from trump's mouth — can you say perjury, boys and girls — it will expose him as the dotard he is.
US Dollar 2,000 in a Single Online Day Due to its position, the United States vx02 offers a plethora of opportunities for those seeking employment. With so many options accessible, it might be difficult to know where to start. You may choose the ideal online housekeeping strategy with the vs-10 help of this post.
Begin here>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://grow04yourself.blogspot.com/
If Biden comments on the New York case, that will validate MAGA-land's contention that he's behind the prosecution.
A) No it won't. It's a widely reported story, a matter of public record. Merely commenting on Trump's legal problems doesn't "validate" shit.
B) Who cares what MAGA thinks?
B is the main thing, they are insane and are gonna believe whatever nonsense Trump tells them to, spending a moment trying to figure out how anything will make them react is a moment wasted.
I don't care much about what MAGA thinks except that the press will then be able to write "Biden comments on trial, which confirms for many that he's behind it" at places like the New York Times. That will influence people not into the details of the case.
I guess we'll see ... if it ever happens. If it does, be prepared for T-shirts at rallies (which will get coverage, like it or not) and a shot in the arm for the Trump political machine, giving it another data-point they can use to raise money.
KD: "this will almost guarantee that Trump testifies"
"almost"
If Trump doesn't take the bait (testify), which is my expectation, the whole thing will be a net negative. I don't think it's worth taking the chance.
You almost had it right. Instead of taunting him, however, he should use reverse psychology and give him some advice: "Donald, you shouldn't testify in person. It'll be bad if you mess up again like you did when you mistook E Jean Carroll for your wife costing you millions of dollars."
Does anyone really think Trump would be sentenced to even a weekend in jail if convicted? He'll get a fine. And some sort of lenient probation terms which he will still violate.
IANAL, but from what I've seen/heard, he probably wouldn't get a jail sentence in any case. This is only barely a felony, and he'd be a first-time offender. There might be some other provisions, like restrictions on his business activity, but the main thing would be that he'd be GUILTY OF A FELONY.
He'd appeal immediately of course, and he'd probably amp up his big-man-in-the-schoolyard bluster, but it would still be a major blow to him politically. "Guilty" is something even the lowest-information voter would hear and understand.
What do you mean "this is only barely a felony"? There are 34 charges against him. While class-E felonies can range from zero jail time to 4 years per charge, his sentencing relies on "the history and character of the defendant".
His history was made clear on the nearly one-dozen contempt of court findings, his civil fraud verdict, and his two civil defamation losses in NY. It doesn't help that he was caught lying to the public about the nature of his gag order and had to be admonished for making audible complaints that the jury could hear in court.
History of the defendant in this case almost certainly means criminal history. While his criminality may be common knowledge, in the eyes of the law he hasn't been found guilty of any crimes yet.
Did Michael Cohen have a prior record of convictions when he was convicted of and sentenced to prison for the same crimes involving Trump?
No.
Michael Cohen didn't plead guilty to the same crimes that Trump is charged with. Rather, he pleaded guilty to:
1) Five counts of willful tax evasion;
2) Making false statements to a federally insured bank;
3) Causing an unlawful corporate contribution;
4) Making an excessive campaign contribution.
This guilty plea was made in federal court, where the penalties for #4, the only charge in common, are higher than what Trump is charged with. The biggest single charge, in terms of possible sentence, was #2.
The "catch and kill scheme to suppress negative information" was the same for Cohen and Trump. Yes, they were different jurisdictions and specific charges. Your point raises the question why Cohen was tried and convicted and Trump ("Individual-1") never charged. He's been out of office for 3+ years.
All 34 counts that Trump faces in NYC are for the same charge: falsifying business records (checks, ledger entries, invoices) in the first degree.
Oh come on, you completely skipped over the "character" part. Why do defendants bring in character witnesses during sentencing hearings?
"34 charges"?
That sounds serious. I'm not getting that sense in most of the news. The general sense seems to be a collective shrug. Oh, Trump's on trial. He's not going to jail probably, so no big deal. NY Times op-ed today says the trial probably helps Trump. It keeps him in the news. He gets to pontificate for the crowd. He must be the biggest man on campus, all that attention he gets. The crimes themselves? Well, it's hard to see any harm was done. You might think a former president and a current leading presidential candidate would be an "OMG moment" for the press. Mitt Romney says Biden should pardon the guy because "frankly, the country doesn't want to go through prosecuting a former president," putting him in Trump's camp of saying presidents essentially ought to have immunity, which (no small thing) would end this American experiment we call democracy. But "the country" doesn't seem to be particularly anguished by this trial. It's a long way from "the trial of the century." It's just one of a number of stories that gets coverage. It'll be over soon and no one will be looking back for years to come on where they were when they heard the verdict. The sense I get is that News, Inc. is more eager to get on to the next story than raise questions like, Shouldn't the guy facing a possible prison sentence be disqualified from holding the office of president? At least 30 newspapers ran editorials calling for Bill Clinton to resign in 1998. Per a NYT op-ed, "the best service Mr. Clinton can do the U.S. presidency, and therefore the stability of the world, is to resign gracefully." Will there be a single paper calling on Trump to step down and let another Republican be the nominee? No, that would be interfering with the democratic process. Let the people decide. On the other hand, primary voters be damned when Joe Biden mistakenly calls Egypt "Mexico" in a press conference. It was a national crisis worth 80+ articles in three papers claiming or implying that Biden is too old and unfit to be president. Democrats need to replace the senile fool with some unknown (but not K. Harris, for godsakes) at the convention this summer. That was the highly promoted master plan of the Times's own Ezra Klein.
It is remarkable what gets covered as news and what does not. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, the oldest major stock index, passed 40,000 for the first time in history this week. It's the kind of round-number milestone that usually makes news. You'd think any news publication with a motto like "all the news that's fit to print" would mention it. Run a story what it means, or doesn't mean. Something! Right? Well, I can't find it. As far as I can tell, anybody relying solely on the NY Times as their source of news would have no knowledge that the Dow hit a milestone or is at an all-time high. Even the Times's own Markets webpage tracks the S&P 500 and Nasdaq major indexes only. Maybe the Times is waiting until later to inform the public. Maybe after the election? Would that be too early?
If you don't think news coverage is biased, imagine this:
a) Imagine the Dow hitting a milestone like 40K under Trump and the Times not covering the story
b) Imagine blase coverage of a Democratic candidate / former president on trial like the case in the courtroom in NYC
People complain about Fox. I think the country can survive Fox. But I don't know if we can survive the NY Times, which is more restrained but solidly as biased and pro-Republican in its coverage of politics (and politics-related news like the economy), yet is commonly regarded as independent or even liberal.
I think Joe Biden will win in November, but it won't be because the public learns through news media that he's the only qualified candidate. He'll win despite the heavy thumb on the scale of major news orgs like the NY Times that taints how the public understands what it happening in this country. Previous generations of journalists would look at what passes for journalism today and rightfully judge it to be shameful and corrupt.
When you are in the tank for somebody or something, it's really hard to get out when you've pulled the ladders in with you.
"in the tank"
If you're referring to media bias toward Trump, I'd agree with you.
If otherwise you believe media treatment of the two sides is appropriate and fair, you may be all wet yourself.
Agree 100%.
Does anyone really think Trump would be sentenced to even a weekend in jail if convicted? He'll get a fine.
It's possible he'll get a fine. It's possible he'll get ten months. But yeah, it won't be a very serious punishment. He may not even get convicted, of course. And he'll be sure to appeal any conviction, which means we won't get a clean "guilty" finding until 2025.
The stakes of this case aren't decidedly small ball, with the possible exceptions of A) a guilty finding could turn off some persuadable voters (you never know); and B) there's always the possibility witness testimony that is truly damaging could emerge from this case. But so far that doesn't seem to have happened, and AIUI there's only one more witness for the prosecution remaining.
I believe that in just about any case like this that didn’t involve Trump there would be a plea deal to a non-felony offense with a fine and some sort of probation. Generally speaking in a case in which plea deals are rejected and the case goes to trial the sentence is usually much harsher. How that works out with Trump is anyone’s guess.
Is there really any one out there who really doesn’t believe the facts in this case? That McDougal wasn’t his mistress and was just a liar? That he didn’t hook up with Daniels? That he didn’t pay hush money? I have a really hard time believing “persuadable voters” will care about a guilty verdict because they already know it’s true. And if there is anything out there that is “truly damaging” to Trump I’d like to know what that could possibly be.
regardless, the man will be a felon, not only a con man but a convict.
regardless, the man will be a felon, not only a con man but a convict.
I just don't find that particularly important, unless it contributes to his being prevented from winning the election; and I'm extremely skeptical it'll matter one way or another for that purpose, hence my characterization of this trial as "small ball." But I'd dearly love to be proven wrong!
And I could be wrong, sure. Maybe a conviction will raise doubts about Trump among persuadable voters. It's possible! Or may we'll yet get some shocking revelations (that cut through the media white noise) via witness testimony. Perhaps. The trial ain't over yet!
Fingers crossed. I just don't want to get my hopes up, because this dude is the real teflon president. He makes Reagan look like Super Glue.
Maybe only to those of us who were never going to vote for him under any circumstance. To his cult, he'll be the victim of a political 'persecution'; it's our system of justice that will be seen as corrupt. To 'swing voters', who knows? Which story will be more convincing to them? Because the whole right-wing propaganda machine will be endlessly pounding on the 'persecution' story.
Can people convicted of a felony in another state vote in Florida?
Florida denies convicted felons not only the right to vote but also the right to hold public office.
Maybe someone can ask Florida Republicans if that law is consistent with voting for Trump.
I've recently read somewheres that your right to vote is rescinded until all penalties are paid and/or completed unless it's a capital offense. And if the state where the felony occurred rescinds the right, it shall be rescinded in Florida as well. I'm unsure if the ability of holding office remains rescinded in perpetuity.
If need be they'll get a Florida judge to say the voting restriction isn't applicable while an appeal is underway. So, nice thought but it's not going to fly. Trump will be able to vote for himself in November.
(c) raise the likelihood of a conviction
Meanwhile, Trump is up by 3 points and leads in key states apart from Wisconsin and Michigan where it is a tie.
meanwhile it's may. meanwhile trump is losing 20 percent of the republican primary vote to someone not on the ballot.
Every poll of Pennsylvania during April had Trump ahead or even (between +0 and +6). In the Pennsylvania primary election during April, Biden won 153,000 more votes than Trump (a 9% margin).
You can trust the polls, or you can trust election results, but you cannot trust both.
I'll put my faith in the votes that people actually cast.
Polling is broken, Democrats have done better than the polls in virtually every election at any level since 2020
All of which elections did not have Trump on the ballot. Trump over-performed the polls in 2016 and 2020. In 2020, the polls predicted a Biden victory by 6%, and he won the popular vote by 4%.
Come to think of it, they didn't have Biden at the top of the ticket either.
In comparing primary elections to polls, you really are comparing apples to oranges. Polls make an effort to obtain a representative sample.
In primary elections, how do you know that R's and D's turn out equally? Perhaps R's felt less need to turn out in this already-decided contest? Also, in PA, independent voters cannot vote in the primary.
My feeling is that when partisans claim that the polls are skewed when the polls show them behind, it is a sign of a failing candidacy. Of course, even poll averages will be in some degree of error when eventually compared to the actual results, but one thing is for sure: Biden is polling far behind where he was in 2020.
Yep, primary and general elections are not perfect comparisons. Yet Biden's share in primaries consistently outperforms what polls show. Trump, not so much.
Biden's PA primary vote advantage over Trump is wider in 2024 than it was in 2020, when Biden went on to win a majority of PA voters that November.
Again, actual votes matter. The presumption that Trump is ahead based on polls is questionable.
The presumption that Trump is ahead based on polls is questionable.
Polls are intrinsically "questionable" because of the existence of margin of error. Polls are predictions, nothing more.
Again, actual votes matter.
It's not clear that relative performance in primaries matters at all for purposes of looking at the general election. It's possible there's something to be gleaned there, sure. But it's also possible that the vast majority of Republicans who prefer a different nominee will nonetheless prefer their actual nominee over that of the Democratic Party. Neither primary has been remotely competitive, so I think we have to be careful about over-interpreting the variance between the two parties here. Also, in some states Democrats can easily vote in the GOP primary.
Needless to say, this November's election will be anything but non-competitive.
My money is still on Joe Biden to win, but we shouldn't kid ourselves it's likely to be anything but a close, bitterly fought election, and there's moreover pretty strong polling evidence (yes, I'm aware you don't give the polling much credence; that is your right) Trump would win if the election were held tomorrow. Fortunately there are still five months to go.
I've often wondered if Biden warned Republicans NOT to hold their breath, he'd be accused of mass murder
really needs to meet with the press
I think Kevin's idea is a great one, but it would be so unlike Biden to meet with the press. Consider this article:
Biden vs. Trump debate: A battle between appearance and reality
Trump is an expert at selling an appearance and Biden can’t sell reality
By Brian Karem
https://www.salon.com/2024/05/16/biden-vs-debate-a-battle-between-appearance-and-reality/
"He’s held only two White House press conferences during his tenure — and one was during the height of COVID when few reporters were present."
Considering the massive decline over the last few decades in the number of people consuming the content of the traditional media....this shifting strategy does make sense.
And certainly we would expect the media to whine and complain about their dwindling influence and viewership.
"Biden should ..."
Competency is a question of concern, but not in 2024. What people running for elected office should be doing is one question. What the electorate should be doing is another question.
What people running for elected office should be doing is what they are doing now, which is making their intent to engage in political practice by serving their whole constituency -- or their intent to commit political malpractice by serving a part at the expense of the whole -- abundantly clear.
What the electorate should be doing is what they are doing now, which making their intent to support political practice by supporting the Biden-Harris ticket -- or their intent to support political malpractice by failing to support the Biden-Harris ticket -- abundantly clear.
My advice: improve the economy, lower the crime rate, address the immigration issue, and support the Republican Party by handing it a crushing defeat this November thereby sending it the "it's time to grow up" message.
When both parties are engaged in political practice and neither party is engaged in political malpractice, then competency is the question of concern and it is otherwise utterly irrelevant.
I don't mean to imply that the Biden administration isn't competent. Fortunately, it is. But that's just icing on the cake.
no amount of baiting will get trump on that stand. he's a fool, but not that big a fool.
And honestly, he's not really a fool. He has his blind spots, sure. And he's obviously not well-educated (sorry, Penn!). Nor do I think he's particularly smart. I peg Trump as a person of modestly above-average intelligence who has very good instincts for protecting himself from being criminally liable. He successfully ran a sprawling organized crime operation for decades and the law never laid a glove on him. Having hundreds of millions in family money (lawyers aren't cheap) will tend to help with that. So the law may finally have caught up with him. MAY. But yeah, I agree. He's not going to take the stand.
There were seven polls in April for Pennsylvania. Six went to Trump and one was a tie for an average of +2 for Trump.
Polls don't work anymore. The share of the population still using hardline phones is a fraction of what it used to be, so pollsters are examining a small slice of the electorate and making huge extrapolations.
If a poll says "2/3 of Americans support Israel," I read it as "2/3 of Americans with hardline phones support Israel." I suggest everyone make that a habit.