Live Updates: Jury Reaches Verdict in Trump Hush-Money Case
www.nytimes.com
Twelve New Yorkers are expected to deliver their verdict shortly in the case against Donald J. Trump. He is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with a payment to a porn star.

edit: I have changed my title to match the new NYTimes headline. Sorry about the all caps, I guess they are really excited about this lol

Also shoutout to @SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone who shared a gift article link in the comments. I hope you don’t mind but I kinda stole it and updated the post

  • donuts@kbin.social
    1511·
    6 months ago

    This is only the tip of the iceberg. Trump is a fucking convicted felon and a serial rapist. Fuck him. Now on to sentencing.

      • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
        101·
        6 months ago

        Could be the initial breach in the dam. If this knocks Cannon off the bench, that classified docs case should be enough to bury him under the prison.

        • FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world
          71·
          6 months ago

          How could this knock Cannon off the bench? I haven’t heard anything about that yet but if it’s a realistic possibility that’s a sweet ass cherry on top

          • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
            1·
            6 months ago

            Not directly, but that’s the thing with houses built of cards. It doesn’t take much after the initial push.

        • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          6 months ago

          And here I thought impeachment was the initial breach in the dam. All this guy’s political career, people have been assuring me “This is it, he’s toast.”

          • donuts@kbin.social
            4·
            6 months ago

            He could run from prison, so there’s no deus ex machina here.

            When November comes around Americans are either going to be smart enough to reelect Biden or stupid enough to let a convicted felon, serial rapist, election denying, wannabe dictator slob take over the most powerful nation on Earth.

            I know what I’m doing. Let’s see if everyone else can pass the basic intelligence test known as “election 2024”.

            • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              6 months ago

              They don’t still hold sway now?

              In a sane world, between a boring white guy with mild accusations of not doing enough to stop a war, and a snake oil salesman promising to rip down transgender protections and murder his opponents, there should be absolutely no chance of the latter winning a single state. Half of America is still wrapped up in his damn cult.

              • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
                1·
                6 months ago

                No, they’re flailing wildly. They sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind. The Dems handed them everything they ever wanted for the border, and they voted against it. Mitch was their most brilliant strategist. He’s on the way out. He’s prepping Johnson to replace him, but anything could happen in a power vacuum. Russian money is faltering. An untouchable billionaire just got his ass handed to him. The GOP is internally divided, and anything BUT in control.

        • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
          22·
          6 months ago

          Dammit. My erection was just going down and now you gotta talk dirty like this?

      • donuts@kbin.social
        8·
        6 months ago

        I’m not so sure…

        I went into this trial knowing that it was the least of Trump’s crimes and thinking that some brainwashed cultist would turn it into a hung jury. I was wrong, and instead we ended up with 34 consecutive guilty verdicts in less than 12 hours.

        Now Trump is going to be sentenced by a judge who he has repeatedly called disgraceful and corrupt after weeks of sleep shitting through the trial. He has shown zero remorse and zero respect for the law. So other than the mythology of Teflon Don, why should the judge sentence him with anything less than he deserves?

  • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    118·
    6 months ago

    If he is guilty on even a single count, the former president and the presumptive republican nominee for the White House will not be able to vote for himself

    What a shit show the Republican party has become.

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      20·
      6 months ago

      Lock her him up!

      We even have signs that will work for this occasion with a slight modification.

  • dragontamer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    64·
    6 months ago

    One way or the other, it will be historic. This is much faster than I expected the Jury to deliberate.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
      321·
      6 months ago

      I assume if they have a verdict it’s guilty. Could be wrong.

      Edit: update convicted on all 34 counts. From the article’s update:

      Mr. Trump was convicted on all 34 counts of falsifying business recordsby a jury of 12 New Yorkers, who deliberated over two days to reach a decision in a case rife with descriptions of secret deals, tabloid scandal and an Oval Office pact with echoes of Watergate. The jury found that Mr. Trump had faked records to conceal the purpose of money given to his onetime fixer, Michael D. Cohen. The false records disguised the payments as ordinary legal expenses when in truth, Mr. Trump was reimbursing Mr. Cohen for a $130,000 hush-money deal the fixer struck with the porn star Stormy Daniels to silence her account of a sexual liaison with Mr. Trump.

  • jumjummy@lemmy.world
    46·
    6 months ago

    First time in history a candidate running for president can’t legally vote for themselves?

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      16·
      6 months ago

      They passed a constitutional amendment in Florida to let felons vote, a couple years ago. The legislature tried to backpeddle it as much as they could in order to prevent black people from voting, but the main mechanism is forcing the felons to pay a bunch of money, which isn’t a problem for Trump.

      • brotkel@programming.dev
        10·
        6 months ago

        Florida also defers to the voting rights in the state where the judgment happened for convictions outside of Florida. And New York lets felons vote. Therefore, Trump can vote in Florida under Florida election law.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        61·
        6 months ago

        The legislature tried to backpeddle it as much as they could in order to prevent black people from voting, but the main mechanism is forcing the felons to pay a bunch of money, which isn’t a problem for Trump.

        To be exact, the “backpedaling” was that if the courts assigned you fines and prison time you had to complete both before you had “completed your sentence” and thus could vote.

      • festus@lemmy.caEnglish
        3·
        6 months ago

        There may be a component that felons have to have finished their sentence which could exclude Trump.

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      204·
      6 months ago

      I bet some female ran prior to female suffrage.

      kagis

      Yeah.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Woodhull

      Victoria Claflin Woodhull (born Victoria California Claflin; September 23, 1838 – June 9, 1927), later Victoria Woodhull Martin, was an American leader of the women’s suffrage movement who ran for president of the United States in the 1872 election. While many historians and authors agree that Woodhull was the first woman to run for the presidency,[2] some disagree with classifying it as a true candidacy because she was younger than the constitutionally mandated age of 35. (Woodhull’s 35th birthday was in September 1873, six months after the March inauguration.)

      An activist for women’s rights and labor reforms, Woodhull was also an advocate of “free love”, by which she meant the freedom to marry, divorce and bear children without social restriction or government interference.[3] “They cannot roll back the rising tide of reform,” she often said. “The world moves.”[4]

      Woodhull twice went from rags to riches, her first fortune being made on the road as a magnetic healer[5] before she joined the spiritualist movement in the 1870s.[6] Authorship of many of her articles is disputed (many of her speeches on these topics were collaborations between Woodhull, her backers, and her second husband, Colonel James Blood[7]). Together with her sister, Tennessee Claflin, she was the first woman to operate a brokerage firm on Wall Street,[8] making a second, and more reputable fortune.[9] They were among the first women to found a newspaper in the United States, Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly, which began publication in 1870.[10]

      Woodhull was politically active in the early 1870s when she was nominated as the first woman candidate for the United States presidency.[8] Woodhull was the candidate in 1872 from the Equal Rights Party, supporting women’s suffrage and equal rights; her running mate (unbeknownst to him) was abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass. Her campaign inspired at least one other woman – apart from her sister – to run for Congress.[8] A check on her activities occurred when she was arrested on obscenity charges a few days before the election. Her paper had published an account of the alleged adulterous affair between the prominent minister Henry Ward Beecher and Elizabeth Richards Tilton which had rather more detail than was considered proper at the time. However, it all added to the sensational coverage of her candidacy.[11]

      Heh, and she was in trouble with the law in the runup to the election like Trump, too.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        I suppose the only questions there are whether or not her state allowed women to vote for president, and whether or not a candidate who cannot legally hold the office counts (since she was under 35). Because it wasn’t just blanket illegal for women to vote prior to the 19th Amendment, it was up to the individual states and like anything up to the individual states it was all over the place depending on which state we’re talking about. For example, New Jersey allowed anyone who had the equivalent of 50 British pounds of wealth to vote regardless of sex (and there are recorded examples of women voting there) - at least until they embraced Jacksonian democracy and removed the wealth requirement and added a sex one. By the time the 19th Amendment passed, women could vote in at least some elections in most states.

        • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
          11·
          6 months ago

          I thought of that, but the first state to do so was well after her run.

          https://www.history.com/news/the-state-where-women-voted-long-before-the-19th-amendment

          When Wyoming sought statehood two decades after its historic vote, the territory’s citizens approved a constitution that maintained the right of women to vote. When Congress threatened to keep Wyoming out of the Union if it didn’t rescind the provision, the territory refused to budge. “We will remain out of the Union one hundred years rather than come in without the women,” the territorial legislature declared in a telegram to congressional leaders. Congress relented, and Wyoming became the first state to grant women the right to vote when it became the country’s 44th state in 1890.

          The West continued to be the country’s most progressive region on full women’s suffrage. Colorado approved it in 1893, and Idaho did the same three years later. Congress had disenfranchised women along with outlawing polygamy in Utah in 1887, but women regained the right to vote when the territory became a state in 1896. After 1910, they were joined by Washington, California, Arizona, Kansas, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota and the territory of Alaska. (Even before the passage of the 19th Amendment, Montana elected a woman, Jeannette Rankin, to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1916.) According to the National Constitution Center, by 1919 there were 15 states in which women had full voting rights, and only two of them were east of the Mississippi River. The dozen states that restricted women from casting ballots in any election were primarily in the South and the East.

          • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            1·
            6 months ago

            Wyoming wasn’t the first state to allow women to vote for President. At the very least women could vote in New Jersey as early as 1790, presuming they had the equivalent of 50 British pounds of wealth (because the wealth requirement was the only requirement). Women later lost the right to vote in New Jersey when New Jersey embraced Jacksonian democracy and extended the right to vote to all white men of age, regardless of wealth.

            But again, women’s right to vote was a state issue prior to the 19th Amendment and as such it was kinda all over the place with some states allowing women to vote but only in some elections (often different rules for municipal, county, state and federal elections).

        • Syltti@lemmy.world
          31·
          6 months ago

          The search gone is called “Kagi”, so the action of using it was “kagis”

        • dutchkimble@lemy.lol
          2·
          6 months ago

          What is this “looking it up” you speak of? We only do googles and kagis and duckduckgos and altavistas

          • Lemminary@lemmy.world
            2·
            6 months ago

            Funny enough, I tried DDG, then Google, then asked MS Copilot and then ChatGPT (both Bing). 😅

        • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
          42·
          6 months ago

          “Searches using Kagi.” Like “googles” for “searches using Google”.

  • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    39·
    6 months ago

    Now the judge who Trump has been royally pissing off the whole time gets to sentence him. If your justice boner lasts for more than 4 hours, please consult a doctor.

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      212·
      6 months ago

      This is going to give a lot of GOP Senators a fig leaf.

      If someone puts a motion in Congress to make it illegal for him to run, a lot of them will vote for it.

      • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
        413·
        6 months ago

        I absolutely do not want a ban on felons running for President. In some countries, that is used as a political tool to eliminate political opponents. Putin used that against Navalny.

        https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42479909

        Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has been formally barred from competing in next year’s presidential election.

        The Central Electoral Commission has said Mr Navalny was ineligible because of a corruption conviction which he says is politically motivated.

        He has urged his supporters to boycott the March vote.

        Mr Navalny, 41, was widely regarded as the only candidate with a chance of challenging President Vladimir Putin.

        • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
          16·
          6 months ago

          Not to mention, Trump won’t even be the first person in the USA who could be running for president from jail.

          edit: the first from a major party though, sorry Debs

        • snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
          111·
          6 months ago

          His felonies are related to campaing financing, which could be used to narrow down without banning all felons. While I oppose anyone losing the right to vote, I don’t oppose people who are connvicted of treason, insurrection, or felonies related to campaign finance or abuse of elected positions being banned since they have been proven to have undermined democracy.

        • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
          6·
          6 months ago

          I get allowing former felons to run for office - they served time that society said was their punishment. They are done with it.

          But a law that bans a felon that has not completed their punishment is a different story.

        • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
          32·
          6 months ago

          We’ve banned them from voting for decades.

          Also, the USA isn’t Russia and Biden isn’t Putin.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        1·
        6 months ago

        bad law. I’d much rather a law where the candidate has to describe the nature of their past convictions in a written statement submitted with their filing paperwork to run and explain why each one doesn’t affect their ability to run the country.

        Aka reflecting on one’s crimes.

        • Smoogs@lemmy.world
          1·
          6 months ago

          Except assholes like trump see themselves as victims of a witch-hunt and he would write that out , sorry: he will have a lawyer write that out for every one of them. I doubt he has the attention span for it.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      10·
      6 months ago

      It gives us something new to troll those miserable asshats over. “Interesting argument, but have you considered the fact that your candidate is a convicted felon?”

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      9·
      6 months ago

      Before all this started, people did make claims that they wouldn’t vote for him if he was convicted.

      But then they also said they wouldn’t vote for him even if Nikki Haley conceded.

      So we’ll see, I guess. But I’m not optimistic.

    • Dwayne_Elizondo_Mountain_Dew_Camacho@sh.itjust.works
      6·
      6 months ago

      Tucker Carlson responded to today’s verdict in what can only be described as an apocalyptic tone, stating on X that the jury’s decision marked “the end of the fairest justice system in the world.” The former Fox News host said that Trump would still win the election “if he’s not killed first,” and closed by saying that “anyone who defends this verdict is a danger to you and your family.”

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      6·
      6 months ago

      Some, but they’ll never tell the others.

      Ladies you don’t have to tell your husband you voted for Biden.

    • Riskable@programming.devEnglish
      61·
      6 months ago

      Yes: To them this demonstrates that the justice system is corrupt and they think only Trump can fix it.

      They will believe this even though Trump isn’t running for any office in New York 🤣

    • snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
      4·
      6 months ago

      It will most matter for undecided voters who required a guilty verdict to decide, althoigh I’m not sure that is a large number in swing states.

      It won’t matter for his base that already ignore reality.

    • fine_sandy_bottom
      21·
      6 months ago

      It’s reductive to think of his supporters as a single bloq.

      It will certainly matter to at least some of them.

  • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
    231·
    6 months ago

    The GOP could have gotten off this wild ride at so many points in the last 8 years, yet here we are. A republican presidential nominee who has been convicted of felonies.

    Edit: And with Biden’s poll numbers they could have run literally anybody else and won.

  • djsoren19@yiffit.net
    181·
    6 months ago

    Today is a very good day.

    Now on the downside, convicted felons are still legally allowed to run for office. Not being able to vote for himself is delicious schadenfreude, but this doesn’t suddenly save democracy. However, I would expect Biden’s administration will push this hard, and I don’t think undecided voters want a felon in the White House.

    • RecallMadness@lemmy.nz
      1·
      6 months ago

      As other have said, Banning felons from voting is a tool that can be used by oppressors to block their political rivals from standing against them.

      Which ironically is something the Republicans are probably wanting to do at some point in the future.