The hush money indictment

[Shadowy Man]

GOP senators warn judge against sentencing Donald Trump to prison

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said it would be a “further abuse of power” to incarcerate Trump or sentence him to home confinement.

“I’m very troubled by what I see in the way the courts have been weaponized,” he said. “It used to be there were some institutions in America, namely the FBI, the Department of Justice and the courts, which were regarded as out of bounds for overt partisan politics, but unfortunately that’s changed, and not for the better.”

Republican senators warn any sentence that would impact Trump’s mobility or ability to communicate with voters could seriously undermine voters’ confidence in the fairness of the 2024 election.

Legal experts predict Merchan won’t sentence Trump to prison right before the convention, but some GOP lawmakers fear that scenario is possible given what they’ve seen of the prosecution and trial so far.

Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) said it would be “foolish” for the judge to sentence Trump to jail or House arrest.

So being punished for some crime is election interference?

If punishing him according to the law would be a political act wouldn’t *not* punishing in accordance with the law also be a political act?

They’re pushing the judge into a lose-lose situation.

 

[lpetrich]

Michael Cohen says his family was doxxed following Donald Trump conviction

Following Thursday’s historic conviction, phone numbers and addresses for Cohen’s wife and children were posted Monday on a site that has been used to target other figures involved in Trump’s sprawling legal battles, said Advance Democracy, a nonprofit research group, according to NBC News.

In a statement to The Hill, Cohen said it’s sad that the doxxing occurred.

“What sad times we are living through when people resort to this type of doxxing stupidity to redress their grievances,” Cohen’s statement said.

...
NBC News reported that Trump supporters tried to dox jurors last week after the conviction.

 

[Shadowy Man]

People should keep in mind that Michael Cohen has already served prison time for the crime that Trump was just found guilty of covering up.

 

[Elixir]

People should keep in mind that Michael Cohen has already served prison time for the crime that Trump was just found guilty of covering up.

INDIVIDUAL 1

 

[starwater]

The orange convicted felon can not gain entry into Canada and 37 other countries including South Africa, Australia, India..

If elected, he will not be allowed entry into our neighbor and ally.

Dems should play up this fact -

 

[bilby]

The orange convicted felon can not gain entry into Canada and 37 other countries including South Africa, Australia, India..

If elected, he will not be allowed entry into our neighbor and ally.

Dems should play up this fact -

It's not really a fact, though.

In the case of Australia, for example, it is a fact that a convicted felon would usually be refused a visa to enter Australia under s.501 of the Migration Act; But this is:

a) At the discretion of the Immigration Minister, who could (and likely would) exempt a foreign head of state from an allied or neutral nation on diplomatic grounds, and

b) Irrelevant to holders of Diplomatic Passports, who do not require a visa to enter Australia, if that entry is for official government business.

So if a future convict President Trump were to want to come to Australia to attend an international summit meeting, he could do so, under point b (above); While if he just wanted to play a few rounds of golf here as a vacation from all the hard work of tear gassing citizens in order to get a photo op of him visiting a church, he could probably also do so, under point a.

His diplomatic passport would certainly mean that he wouldn't be disallowed from doing any official business that involved travel to Australia; And that's likely true of other countries too.

 

[starwater]

The orange convicted felon can not gain entry into Canada and 37 other countries including South Africa, Australia, India..

If elected, he will not be allowed entry into our neighbor and ally.

Dems should play up this fact -

It's not really a fact, though.

In the case of Australia, for example, it is a fact that a convicted felon would usually be refused a visa to enter Australia under s.501 of the Migration Act; But this is:

a) At the discretion of the Immigration Minister, who could (and likely would) exempt a foreign head of state from an allied or neutral nation on diplomatic grounds, and

b) Irrelevant to holders of Diplomatic Passports, who do not require a visa to enter Australia, if that entry is for official government business.

So if a future convict President Trump were to want to come to Australia to attend an international summit meeting, he could do so, under point b (above); While if he just wanted to play a few rounds of golf here as a vacation from all the hard work of tear gassing citizens in order to get a photo op of him visiting a church, he could probably also do so, under point a.

His diplomatic passport would certainly mean that he wouldn't be disallowed from doing any official business that involved travel to Australia; And that's likely true of other countries too.

It is still an extra step - and other countries may not be so accommodating.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

The Yam colored buffoon should have to first get The Boot before being allowed to stay in Australia.

 

[Rhea]

Michael Cohen says his family was doxxed following Donald Trump conviction

Following Thursday’s historic conviction, phone numbers and addresses for Cohen’s wife and children were posted Monday on a site that has been used to target other figures involved in Trump’s sprawling legal battles, said Advance Democracy, a nonprofit research group, according to NBC News.

In a statement to The Hill, Cohen said it’s sad that the doxxing occurred.

“What sad times we are living through when people resort to this type of doxxing stupidity to redress their grievances,” Cohen’s statement said.

...
NBC News reported that Trump supporters tried to dox jurors last week after the conviction.

What is very important to me is watching whether Trump publicly condemns the doxxing, and demands that people stop.

A reasonable peron would. An honorable person would. An innocent person would.

 

[laughing dog]

Michael Cohen says his family was doxxed following Donald Trump conviction

Following Thursday’s historic conviction, phone numbers and addresses for Cohen’s wife and children were posted Monday on a site that has been used to target other figures involved in Trump’s sprawling legal battles, said Advance Democracy, a nonprofit research group, according to NBC News.

In a statement to The Hill, Cohen said it’s sad that the doxxing occurred.

“What sad times we are living through when people resort to this type of doxxing stupidity to redress their grievances,” Cohen’s statement said.

...
NBC News reported that Trump supporters tried to dox jurors last week after the conviction.

What is very important to me is watching whether Trump publicly condemns the doxxing, and demands that people stop.

A reasonable peron would. An honorable person would. An innocent person would.

Even a decent guilty person would.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Michael Cohen says his family was doxxed following Donald Trump conviction

Following Thursday’s historic conviction, phone numbers and addresses for Cohen’s wife and children were posted Monday on a site that has been used to target other figures involved in Trump’s sprawling legal battles, said Advance Democracy, a nonprofit research group, according to NBC News.

In a statement to The Hill, Cohen said it’s sad that the doxxing occurred.

“What sad times we are living through when people resort to this type of doxxing stupidity to redress their grievances,” Cohen’s statement said.

...
NBC News reported that Trump supporters tried to dox jurors last week after the conviction.

What is very important to me is watching whether Trump publicly condemns the doxxing, and demands that people stop.

A reasonable peron would. An honorable person would. An innocent person would.

That question answers itself. We all know what will happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the case of Australia, for example, it is a fact that a convicted felon would usually be refused a visa to enter Australia under s.501 of the Migration Act; But this is:

a) At the discretion of the Immigration Minister, who could (and likely would) exempt a foreign head of state from an allied or neutral nation on diplomatic grounds, and

b) Irrelevant to holders of Diplomatic Passports, who do not require a visa to enter Australia, if that entry is for official government business.

I don't see your second point. Diplomats can be expelled (typically referred to as PNGed) or denied entry. They're just not subject to arrest while in the country. (Typically happens when a diplomat is identified as a spymaster and the host nation for whatever reason doesn't want to use that for deception.)

 

[bilby]

I don't see your second point.

The actual rules are very complex, and are defined by the Vienna Convention. But in no case does a diplomatic passport holder require a visa to enter Australia. So the section of the migration act debarring convicted felons from a visa don't apply.

 

[Swammerdami]

From the boring and off-topic trivia desk (though possibly relevant to the sub-topic) :

Here in the Kingdom the 1991 coup led by Suchinda Khraprayun was well-received. (It overthrew a civilian government so corrupt it was called "the Buffet government" as ministers nibbled on whatever looked delicious!)

Elections were held in 1992; Narong Wongwan was chosen as Prime Minister. Narong's candidacy was rejected however and no alternate civilian was available -- "it was Narong's turn." Instead junta-leader Suchinda Khraprayun was chosen to be P.M.; this led to the "Bloody May" crisis, noteworthy for being ... bloody. (I think I've previously reported on the way H.M. Bhumibol the Great ended that crisis.)

Why was Narong's P.M. candidacy rejected? The U.S. government announced that, as a suspected heroin trafficker, Narong would not be permitted to enter the United States.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't see your second point.

The actual rules are very complex, and are defined by the Vienna Convention. But in no case does a diplomatic passport holder require a visa to enter Australia. So the section of the migration act debarring convicted felons from a visa don't apply.

Let's hope someone decides to stop enabling Orange Sociopath and just tells him to go pound salt.

 

[ZiprHead]

In the rough: Felony convictions could cost Trump liquor licenses at 3 New Jersey golf courses

New Jersey’s attorney general’s office is looking into whether Donald Trump’s recent felony convictions in New York make him ineligible to hold liquor licenses at his three New Jersey golf courses.

apnews.com

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey’s attorney general’s office is looking into whether Donald Trump’s recent felony convictions in New York make him ineligible to hold liquor licenses at his three New Jersey golf courses.

A spokeswoman for the office said Monday that it is reviewing whether Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts involving payment of hush money to a porn star and falsifying business records in an attempt to hide it should impact the former president’s continued ability to hold liquor licenses.

State law prohibits anyone from holding a liquor licenses who has been convicted of a crime “involving moral turpitude.”

The New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, which is part of the attorney general’s office, “is reviewing the impact of President Trump’s conviction on the above referenced licenses, and declines further comment at this time,” a spokeswoman for the office said in an email Monday.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't see your second point.

The actual rules are very complex, and are defined by the Vienna Convention. But in no case does a diplomatic passport holder require a visa to enter Australia. So the section of the migration act debarring convicted felons from a visa don't apply.

But there's nothing about it that says a state has to accept any given diplomat.

 

[bilby]

I don't see your second point.

The actual rules are very complex, and are defined by the Vienna Convention. But in no case does a diplomatic passport holder require a visa to enter Australia. So the section of the migration act debarring convicted felons from a visa don't apply.

But there's nothing about it that says a state has to accept any given diplomat.

It would be up to the immigration minister.

I cannot envisage any Australian immgration minister denying entry on official business to any US (or any other NATO, EU, UK, or NZ) head of state.

The state in question would have to change radically for that to be imaginable. The individual's identity (even if it's INDIVIDUAL 1) is trancended by the office - pissing off Trump is no biggie, but Australia doesn't want to piss off the USofA.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I don't see your second point.

The actual rules are very complex, and are defined by the Vienna Convention. But in no case does a diplomatic passport holder require a visa to enter Australia. So the section of the migration act debarring convicted felons from a visa don't apply.

But there's nothing about it that says a state has to accept any given diplomat.

It would be up to the immigration minister.

I cannot envisage any Australian immgration minister denying entry on official business to any US (or any other NATO, EU, UK, or NZ) head of state.

The state in question would have to change radically for that to be imaginable. The individual's identity (even if it's INDIVIDUAL 1) is trancended by the office - pissing off Trump is no biggie, but Australia doesn't want to piss off the USofA.

To be honest, it wouldn’t piss off all of the USA. Not even a majority.

 

[bilby]

I don't see your second point.

The actual rules are very complex, and are defined by the Vienna Convention. But in no case does a diplomatic passport holder require a visa to enter Australia. So the section of the migration act debarring convicted felons from a visa don't apply.

But there's nothing about it that says a state has to accept any given diplomat.

It would be up to the immigration minister.

I cannot envisage any Australian immgration minister denying entry on official business to any US (or any other NATO, EU, UK, or NZ) head of state.

The state in question would have to change radically for that to be imaginable. The individual's identity (even if it's INDIVIDUAL 1) is trancended by the office - pissing off Trump is no biggie, but Australia doesn't want to piss off the USofA.

To be honest, it wouldn’t piss off all of the USA. Not even a majority.

A nation state is not its citizens. It's not even a majority of its citizens. It is its government (in the broadest sense; Not just the elected parts, indeed, not particularly the elected parts).

The USA went to war in Vietnam (or at least stayed there as long as it did), and in Iraq; And failed to go to war before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, or so far in Ukraiine; And had both Donald Trump and G W Bush as presidents, despite the opinions of a majority of its citizens.

From the perspective of other countries, the USA is the collection of treaties by which the USA is bound, weighted by the expectation that those treaties will be complied with. None of that changes very much with swings in public opinion, or with changes in the individuals elected to various roles.

One of the problems with Trump as president is his demonstrated desire to replace dependably boring bureaucrats with partisan nutters who might disregard treaties and supranational obligations. That has zero impact on Americans in America, but it massively reduces the standing of the USA in the eyes of the other 95% of the world. Just the possibility that it could happen was enough to start a war in Ukraine.