Wow.
What next I wonder?
An appeal, presumably.
2 Likes
Lets just hope he gets handed a 20year sentence.
But have to wait til July to find out.
Max is 4 years and very unlikely to be custodial anyway - at least in a regular jail as Trump, as an ex president, remains entitled to 24/7 secret service protection. The logistics of doing that within the standard corrections framework would be enormous.
Perhaps house arrest at Mar-a-Largo would be appropriate.
Edit: Sorry - might be 4 years per count. Heâs still relatively unlikely to get locked up.
4 years per count up to a max total of 20 years.
House arrest would be fine if they also gag him.
1 Like
Will his supporters go on a rampage like they did before?
The jury were Great again.
1 Like
I wrote Wow, Wow, WowâŚ! Trump guilty of all 34 charges! Whatâs next I wonder? in a different thread, which Iâve since deleted.
What happens next will be very interesting. He will be a recorded felon for the rest of his life. He deserves that at least.
1 Like
I was reading somewhere yesterday (law blog/fediverse) that there a number of appealable issues, so pretty likely heâll get another chance to spout off at how crooked the system is, even if he manages to reduce the number of counts on appeal.
Listening to an American commentator last night on th e World at ten, his take was that it would not affect the views of his died in the wool supporters, but it may well affect the thinking floating voters who hold the balance of power in the upcoming election.
What really is surprising is that a great nation like the United States has not made any adjustments to the Constitution to bring it into modern times.
It is totally amazing that a President can rule from jail because the founding fathers did not foresee a corrupt President.
The same with not updating the rules on firearms. Brown Betty muskets would not provide much protection nowadays.
3 Likes
It wonât - his core supporters are fully subsumed into the MAGA cult, if anything the âitâs all a conspiracy against meâ angle will increase their loyalty.
Certainly there are some floating voters but Trump is so polarising that I think their numbers will be relatively small.
That said I think this will swing the few moderate Republicans still left away from Trump.
They did - what they did not foresee was that fully half of Congress would be sucked in/just as corrupt.
But the 2nd amendment does not mandate any specific *type* of firearm.
Indeed if the 2nd amendment had been followed and individual states did maintain a well armed (and regulated) militia I suspect that there would be fewer problems.
The problem is that it has been interpreted as an individual âright to bear arms - and for so long that it is difficult to unpick.
2 Likes
Thats a very questionable statement.
One of my driver friends on an American forum, writing in a thread about which states allow the carrying of guns and which donât, and which allow carrying as in concealed in the cab, says that he always âcarrysâ, concealed but on his person, no matter what state he is driving through because âthe 2nd amendment says I canâ. A bit extreme perhaps but I am horrified at the number of them that do have a gun, even if under the bunk or elsewhere out of sight.
I enjoy my jousts with them, not always understood, but what a country, not in my wildest nightmares would I agree to live there.
4 Likes
5$âŹÂŁ says heâs never read the actual text of the amendment.
1 Like
I wouldnât bet with you on that. Briefly it states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
But then goes on clearly linking it to a well regulated militia and even at one point justifies the militia in defence from a federal army.
That said, there are different versions, depending on the states concerned including with or without certain commas. Who, in another thread, hinted that punctuation doesnât matter? 
Some state-ratified versions, such as Marylandâs, omitted the first or final commas:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So of course you are right, I bet he hasnât too.
Yes the 2nd Amendment has zero to do with people having guns at home or carrying them around with them âfor self-defenceâ.
It dates from a time when professional armies didnât exist (unless you count mercenaries), so âcitizen armiesâ aka militias had to be raised to fight a war. And of course in America the insurrection against British rule was fresh in their minds, so ensuring that a supply of trained and disciplined (âwell-regulatedâ) armed men would be available to defend the new State was the whole point of the Amendment.
The contentious (and dubious) reinterpretation to extend it to a right for citizens to own weapons for their own personal defence happened via a Supreme Court judgement the 1950s (if memory serves me aright) so is not actually what the Founding fathers intended at all.
And of course the huge difference in the lethality and firing speed of guns from the 18th century to now is another important factor.
Iâm sure George Washington et al would have been horrified at the idea that untrained members of the public would easily be able to get hold of the kind of weapons available today.
2 Likes
Or even visit.
Trump is giving an address from trump Tower
From the BBC:
Well, yes Donald - if you commit crimes you can be tried and convicted. This can, indeed, happen to anyone - including you 
FFS.
4 Likes
Youâre conveniently forgetting that the original Minutemen were far better armed than the British troops they were fighting against.
The âPennsylvania Riflesâ used by the American light infantry units allowed their users to put effective fire on British soldiers from 300 yards whereas the British âBrown Bessâ muskets could only provide effective fire out to 100 yards when fired in volleys.