Ellis Wyatt said:
Anyone else listening to this "legal expert" imbecile on WBAP? I don't think she has correctly stated a single fact about the case. It's clear she hates Donald Trump, though.
I wouldn't want this idiot taking care of a parking ticket for me.
https://kimbroughlegal.com/meet-tycha-kimbrough-of-kimbrough-legal-pllc/texagbeliever said:Ellis Wyatt said:
Anyone else listening to this "legal expert" imbecile on WBAP? I don't think she has correctly stated a single fact about the case. It's clear she hates Donald Trump, though.
I wouldn't want this idiot taking care of a parking ticket for me.
I think you are missing that if you feel something strong enough that makes it a fact. The problem is you just not feeling it enough not them abandoning logic.
Family lawEllis Wyatt said:https://kimbroughlegal.com/meet-tycha-kimbrough-of-kimbrough-legal-pllc/texagbeliever said:Ellis Wyatt said:
Anyone else listening to this "legal expert" imbecile on WBAP? I don't think she has correctly stated a single fact about the case. It's clear she hates Donald Trump, though.
I wouldn't want this idiot taking care of a parking ticket for me.
I think you are missing that if you feel something strong enough that makes it a fact. The problem is you just not feeling it enough not them abandoning logic.
This is the "lawyer."
Nothing she said was remotely close to legally sound. I am not a lawyer, but I have a brain. That woman is an utter doofus.TexAg1987 said:Family lawEllis Wyatt said:https://kimbroughlegal.com/meet-tycha-kimbrough-of-kimbrough-legal-pllc/texagbeliever said:Ellis Wyatt said:
Anyone else listening to this "legal expert" imbecile on WBAP? I don't think she has correctly stated a single fact about the case. It's clear she hates Donald Trump, though.
I wouldn't want this idiot taking care of a parking ticket for me.
I think you are missing that if you feel something strong enough that makes it a fact. The problem is you just not feeling it enough not them abandoning logic.
This is the "lawyer."
As I have explained before, this judge has complete control over his docket. When motions can be filed, and then briefed and then hearings held. He can stretch that out for as long as he wants, absent a writ of mandamus from a higher court. (Good luck even getting that heard on an expedited basis.)Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:
So the upcoming flurry of motions will attempt to break any links in that flimsy chain. Do you have a WAG on timing? I'd imagine it will be like knocking the milk bottles down like at a carnival game. Take a coupe of shots, see what happens, then rinse and repeat?
Quote:
This bootstrap theory has been widely criticized, but many in the media sought to cut off that debate by suggesting that Bragg might be basing his prosecution on some unknown crime. Last week, Michael Cohen's attorney Lanny Davis went as far to "warn all the pundits and everyone speculating…that there are lots of facts, lots of documents, lots of evidence of multiple crimes."
And commentary from Hot Air.Quote:
We now have the indictment, and it is basically what many of us anticipated. It is a series of stacked counts of falsifying business records for the purpose of influencing the election. The indictment seems to address the lack of legal precedent with a lack of specificity on the underlying "secondary" felony. Bragg has done nothing more than replicated the same flawed theory dozens of times. This is where math and the law meet. If you multiply any number by zero, it is still zero.
If the New York bench retains any integrity, this case will be thrown out as legally improper with an admonition to Bragg and his office for politicizing the criminal justice process. That, however, may be asking a lot of state judges who are elected on both the trial and appellate levels. They also may prove to be lawyers on the Wilde side.
The cost, however, to the legal system will be immense.
Via Hot AirQuote:
[The test is this: do elected judges in New York have enough integrity to enforce the rule of law the ACTUAL rule of law? Americans are supposed to be arraigned publicly with all charges known at the time of arraignment, and yet Bragg admittedly is withholding the basis of this arraignment from the defendant. Both Turley and Andrew McCarthy have rightly called out this step as grossly unconstitutional. Will judges intervene to put an end to it, or are they too politically invested in the outcome? Ed]
TexAg1987 said:Family lawEllis Wyatt said:https://kimbroughlegal.com/meet-tycha-kimbrough-of-kimbrough-legal-pllc/texagbeliever said:Ellis Wyatt said:
Anyone else listening to this "legal expert" imbecile on WBAP? I don't think she has correctly stated a single fact about the case. It's clear she hates Donald Trump, though.
I wouldn't want this idiot taking care of a parking ticket for me.
I think you are missing that if you feel something strong enough that makes it a fact. The problem is you just not feeling it enough not them abandoning logic.
This is the "lawyer."
If she is a lawyer I hope the judge in the case didn't go to the same law school.Ellis Wyatt said:
She thinks federal campaign finance charges are coming because the state of New York can prove their case. And she said the state doesn't even need to tell Donald Trump what crime he committed that he was covering up.
She's a blithering idiot and a liar. If I were her, I would disassociate my name with that radio interview.agz win said:TexAg1987 said:Family lawEllis Wyatt said:https://kimbroughlegal.com/meet-tycha-kimbrough-of-kimbrough-legal-pllc/texagbeliever said:Ellis Wyatt said:
Anyone else listening to this "legal expert" imbecile on WBAP? I don't think she has correctly stated a single fact about the case. It's clear she hates Donald Trump, though.
I wouldn't want this idiot taking care of a parking ticket for me.
I think you are missing that if you feel something strong enough that makes it a fact. The problem is you just not feeling it enough not them abandoning logic.
This is the "lawyer."
Baylor Law.
Practice Areas: Criminal, Family, Litigation: Personal Injury, LGBT Law.
Why all the hate for Tychanikanitza (is she may Aztec or Mayan)??Ellis Wyatt said:She's a blithering idiot and a liar. If I were her, I would disassociate my name with that radio interview.agz win said:TexAg1987 said:
Family law
Baylor Law.
Practice Areas: Criminal, Family, Litigation: Personal Injury, LGBT Law.
She probably has Tenacious T trademarked.Quote:
Tycha works tenaciously to serve her community. Some of her service and pro bono work includes leading voter education and registration drives, advocating for marginalized individuals, serving as a mentor, and volunteering with numerous legal organizations to ensure everyone has access to justice.
At a young age, Tycha became involved in grassroots community organizing and activism. Tycha is an advocate for protecting civil rights and criminal justice reform.
so he's facing up to 136 years maximum if convicted on all counts.Retired FBI Agent said:Even if convicted, he wouldn't face any prison time for these minimal charges.lethalninja said:
He's facing up to 136 years in prison, since each of the 34 charges carries up to four years in prison, but even if he's convicted, it's very unlikely that he'll get the maximum.
As a convicted felon he'd still be eligible to run for POTUS in 2024. Could argue it helps him, at least in the primary.
However, I don't believe he would be eligible to vote (for himself) in Florida. So -1 vote.
LOL. The only time Biden has a steady hand is when he's holding an ice cream cone.Quote:
The New York Times' Peter Baker and Michael Shear wrote about the indictment in a 1512-word news story. They warned about the dangers of the media's wall-to-wall coverage of Trump's indictment and how the "wild gyrations" have drowned out Biden's voice.
"No commander in chief in more than a century has been eclipsed in the public eye by the leader he succeeded the way Mr. Biden has at times," they wrote. "Now with the first criminal prosecution of a former president in American history, it will be that much harder to command the national conversation."
"Yet it is a contrast that Mr. Biden's team hopes will eventually benefit him," they wrote. "The wild gyrations of the Trump show, in this view, only reinforce the reasons voters turned to Mr. Biden in the first place the appeal of a steady hand against the storm."
First, this case will not go to trial. It has too many fatal flaws, one of which is the stacking to get to 34 counts. So just on that one legal issue alone, the counts get whittled down to one or two counts.LMCane said:so he's facing up to 136 years maximum if convicted on all counts.Retired FBI Agent said:Even if convicted, he wouldn't face any prison time for these minimal charges.lethalninja said:
He's facing up to 136 years in prison, since each of the 34 charges carries up to four years in prison, but even if he's convicted, it's very unlikely that he'll get the maximum.
As a convicted felon he'd still be eligible to run for POTUS in 2024. Could argue it helps him, at least in the primary.
However, I don't believe he would be eligible to vote (for himself) in Florida. So -1 vote.
then this guy states with certainty he won't get jail time even if convicted
seriously, do you live in the real world or the fake FBI world?
because if he is convicted, what stops the leftist Judge following up the leftist jury with a prison sentence?
do you actually mean to claim Trump would not SERVE any jail time because he would be appealing it for years until he dies?
you should go back and reread what you typed.
B-1 83 said:
Quote:
Hands are too small...
And the alleged conspiracy was between who? Trump, Cohen, Pecker, Stormy, her lawyer and Karen McDougal and her lawyer? Meaning all three lawyers involved knowingly ensnared their clients in a crime? Without one single victim?fka ftc said:
Bragg's nonsense feels like a *******ization of RICO and obstruction of justice nonsense.
He wants the crime to be that Trump had some conspiracy with Cohen to defraud votes by legally paying for an NDA, but keeping it quiet to mislead the public in 2016 then furthered that conspiracy when he paid Michael Cohen back and allegedly but intentionally misrecorded to transactions in the books of his private company, which was also a conspiracy to mislead the public in order to defraud them of information.
So none of the individual facts are crimes, even the misdemeanor bookkeeping crime is suspect since no one should have seen his personal business records. BUT... since he was also running for President and was a mean nasty man then all of these innocent, non-criminal actions together, when mixed and stirred, form a felony conspiracy to be having a crime.
Oh, and $130,000 is higher than the federal campaign contribution limit so that's a felony too.
I have considerably less hair than I did in 2015 and it's not due to aging nor allopecia nor a bad perm/dye job. I have been tearing my hair out over seeing our judiciary just go into the dumpster. I was very wary when Obama's fundamental transformation campaign speech worked and he was elected.fka ftc said:
Its got to be maddening for someone like you to see the total *******ization and manipulation of what was once sacred.
🚨BREAKING: President @realDonaldTrump has raised more than $12 MILLION since Soros-funded @ManhattanDA brought the sham indictment.
— Team Trump (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TeamTrump) April 6, 2023
Show your support for President Trump >>> https://t.co/LMxWNGGGBH
The judge obviously has no integrity whatsoever or he would have already recused himself. So, I guess not.whatthehey78 said:
Dumb question...but, here goes - Is there no one who can step in and "toss" this indictment for some (?) legal reason??? Standing...Frivolous...Statue of Limitations...miss application of the law...Precedent...legal NDA...something?????
When I first was in practice, there was judge who was just plain stupid and incompent. Both sides would file to kick her off of the case. Nightmare judge. She was insane. State supreme court ordered three writs of superintending control and that was within the first few years thar I was practicing, she was that bad.whatthehey78 said:
Dumb question...but, here goes - Is there no one who can step in and "toss" this indictment for some (?) legal reason??? Standing...Frivolous...Statue of Limitations...miss application of the law...Precedent...legal NDA...something?????
"Man up and vanished like a Schiff in the wind!!!"Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Much rage if Trump manages to beat this.
Yes. Only one has been removed though. Alcee Hastings, federal district court judge. Bribery from people who had business before his court.fasthorse05 said:
Is the impeaching process of a federal judge the same as a president?
I've seen the 5th Circuit reverse, remand, and reassign cases from Lynn Hughes before specifically because of the behavior of the judge.aggiehawg said:
It is very hard to overcome really bad judges, state. Federal? Impossible.
Sam Kent was on the doorstep of being impeached as well. I have a good friend that clerked for him long before he went off the rails. Has some good stories for sure.aggiehawg said:Yes. Only one has been removed though. Alcee Hastings, federal district court judge. Bribery from people who had business before his court.fasthorse05 said:
Is the impeaching process of a federal judge the same as a president?
