Reply to Trump found Guilty on all charges!

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Trump found Guilty on all charges! "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Mr. Trump's convictions have at least a 50% chance of being overturned on appeal.[/quote]

It's greater than 50%.   There were so many irreversible errors that they are hard to count.  [/quote]

Irreversible errors…but greater than 50%. MAGA in a nutshell with that stroke of genius…[/quote]

Sorry - reversible errors.  Happy now?  [/quote]

Name them and how they’re reversible in an appellate court (i.e., go copy and paste from Sean Hannity). [/quote]

I'll name a few.  And, Elie Honig is the source.... a legal analyst from CNN.

"The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for ‘resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy,’"

Bragg ran for office by "touting his Trump-hunting prowess" in the deeply blue county. Honig, who noted Bragg and Trump attorney Todd Blanche are both his friends and former colleagues, also said Bragg regularly made false claims about Trump on the campaign trail.

"Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process."

"In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever."

The second issue was the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor had long passed, so the DA needed to "inflate the charges" to a low-level felony. To do so, Honig pointed out that Bragg’s office alleged that the falsification of business records was committed "with intent to commit another crime." "Here, according to prosecutors, the ‘another crime’ is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate ‘unlawful means’: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents," Honig wrote.  None of these were listed in the indictment and the defendant was not informed of these charges until the end of the trial.  And, Bragg has no authority to prosecute federal election law.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html

And, then there is Constitutional Attorney Jonathan Turley.....

Acting Supreme Court justice Juan Merchan was handpicked for this case rather than randomly selected. This is only the latest in a litany of Trump cases where Merchan has meted out tough rulings against Trump and his organization. With any other defendant, there would likely be outrage over his selection. Merchan donated to President Biden. Even though the state bar cleared that violation based on the small size of the contribution, it later stressed that no such contributions were appropriate for a judge. We learned later that Merchan has contributed to a group to stop the GOP and Trump. Merchan’s daughter is also a Democratic organizer who has helped raise millions against Trump and the GOP and for the Democrats.

It is not just the appearance of a conflict with Judge Merchan but a record of highly biased decisions. In watching Merchan in the courtroom, I was shocked by his rulings as at times incomprehensible and conflicted.

Even when closing arguments were given, analysts on various networks admitted that they were unclear about what Bragg was alleging. The indictment claimed a violation under New York’s election law 17-152 that the falsification of business records were committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election. However, in a maddeningly circular theory, that other crime could be the falsification of business records. It could also be violations of federal election and taxation laws, which Trump was never charged with, let alone convicted of.

Judge Merchan allowed a torrent of immaterial and prejudicial evidence to be introduced into the trial by the prosecution. That included testimony from porn actress Stormy Daniels that went into details about having sex with Trump. She included a clear suggestion that Trump raped her. After this utterly disgraceful testimony, Merchan expressed regret but actually blamed the defense counsel, despite their prior objections to the testimony. He had previously chastised counsel for making continued objections, but now he criticized them for not continuing to make objections.

For example, he allowed the prosecutors to introduce the plea agreement of Michael Cohen to federal election violations as well as the non-prosecution agreement of David Pecker on such violations. However, it was allowed only for the purposes of credibility and context. He issued an instruction that the jury could not consider the plea or the agreement to establish or impute the guilt of Trump.

The prosecutors then proceeded to expressly state that it was “a fact” that federal election violations occurred in this case and that Trump ordered those violations. They also solicited such statements from witnesses like Cohen. Merchan overruled the objections that the prosecutors were eviscerating his instruction. Merchan also barred the use of a legal expert, former FEC Chair Brad Smith, who was prepared to testify that such payments cannot be viewed as federal election violations and would not affect the election even if they were considered contributions, since they would not even have had to be reported until after the election.

Merchan allowed the jury to find that the secondary offense was any of the three vaguely defined options. Even on the jury form, they did not have to specify which of the crimes were found. Under Merchan’s instruction, the jury could have split 4-4-4 on what occurred in the case. They could have seen a conspiracy to conceal a federal election violation, falsification of business records or taxation violations. We will never know. Worse yet, Trump will never know.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the requirement of unanimity in criminal convictions is sacrosanct in our system. While there was unanimity that the business records were falsified to hide or further a second crime, there was no express finding of what that crime may have been.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4697118-braggs-thrill-kill-in-manhattan-could-prove-short-lived-on-appeal/[/quote]

Do you appreciate how remarkably weak this sounds? This is what they’re going to argue?[/quote]

I have no idea what they are going to argue.  They have a lot to choose from.

Don't forget the NY just recently overturned the conviction of Harvey Weinstein......

The New York Court of Appeals, in a scathing 4-3 opinion, overturned Weinstein's conviction on sex crimes against three women, [b]finding the trial judge "erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes."

The court said that testimony "served no material non-propensity purpose" and "portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light."[/b]
https://abcnews.go.com/US/harvey-weinstein-conviction-overturned-new-york/story?id=109621776

A similar argument can be made in the case against Trump, only there is a plethora of other issues they could argue as well.  
[/quote]

Well, if that’s what a “plethora” amounts to, good luck with that. Until then, he’s a convicted felon now and sentencing is in one month. [/quote]

So?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics