Its not even colorable that Texas would have standing to sue another state for bringing a criminal prosecution, even if the defendant is a candidate for national officeaggiehawg said:Neither did Roe in Roe v. Wade as she was no longer pregnant when the case was heard. When they want to, SCOTUS can get around those pesky things like actual controversy, ripeness, mootness and standing.Quote:
They wouldn't have had standing for that ever.
They are not final because they are infallible, they are infallible because they are final. But even then they can reverse themselves and do on occasion.
*** Official Trump Hush Money Trial Thread ***
601,949 Views |
6807 Replies |
Last: 2 days ago by Stat Monitor Repairman
There is no crime here. Just a bogus malicious prosecution in a jurisdiction with a heavy democrat voting district where the prosecution will have a favorable biased jury likely to convict because of politics not evidence. They just want any conviction so the Dems and media can run with a Trump is a convicted felon angle. Remember little wormy **** Stephanopolos interview with the Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace? He routinely called Trump a rapist during that interview because he was found liable in the kangaroo court civil suit brought by E Jean Carroll. That's the type of latitude they are looking for to help separate Trump from the voters.
Its not really huge. None of that really matters. But FWIW, New York is going to use (or is likely going to use) multiple underlying crimes, including federal felonies...Quote:If I understand this correctly, this is huge.Quote:
Too little, too late. State cannot pivot and add charges not in the indictment once trial has started and jeopardy has attached. And not even a felony! Oy vey! What a mess!
Piling misdemeanor upon misdemeanor usually does not make a felony case. I see no reason why it would here.
We always assumed that Bragg was relying on some unnamed federal crime to bootstrap his misdemeanor charges against Trump onto in order to make them felonious...thereby providing the justification to extend the statute of limitiations on the allegations.
But now it is revealed that no, it isn't a federal statute that they are relying upon. Rather, it is a New York state election statute. So among the snakes in Pandora's Box now opened:
- they're bootstrapping a misdemeanor onto a misdemeanor in order to claim a felony (as hawg has already noted); BUT, the statute of limitations on BOTH misdemeanors have run.
- instead of arguing federal statute, in which they could claim that they have no control over the prosecution of, they're pointing to a STATE statute, in which they have exclusive control over prosecuting for - but have not charged Trump under this statute.
Merchan says we're moving on, but agrees with the government and references the three theories he will allow the prosecution to pursue re: the predicate. Here they are, as a reminder.
— Tyler McBrien (@TylerMcBrien) April 23, 2024
Full order: https://t.co/zdrlScVJBU pic.twitter.com/5Ili8Dmi0Z
This headline was probably inevitable.
[url=https://ibb.co/1K5ssfL]
[/url]
[url=https://ibb.co/1K5ssfL]
[/url]
There is no crime here.
There was no crime in any of the trials they brought against Trump.
There was no crime in any of the trials they brought against Trump.
Hawg,
What is your overall summary of the trial so far? I will read through more of the specific on here later, but just a general quick rundown.
TIA
What is your overall summary of the trial so far? I will read through more of the specific on here later, but just a general quick rundown.
TIA
The crime here is that Trump is Trump. While that crime is not on the books, the authorities and judge will maneuver the law so that it is so.
I wonder if the lawyers in the jury feel any ounce of regret for what they're about to do, or fear for their professional lives if they don't do what's expected from them and get one on Trump.
I wonder if the lawyers in the jury feel any ounce of regret for what they're about to do, or fear for their professional lives if they don't do what's expected from them and get one on Trump.
Remember. the objective = keep Trump in trail jail and off campaign trail max amount.aggiehawg said:He needs to clarify that as trying to mind read Merchan is tricky at best. Besides, Merchan can rule without a sidebar by just saying sustained or overruled immediately. If he needs to hear from the other side, then he calls them up for a sidebar.Im Gipper said:
I'd say it likely means just state the objection and not start argument. Fairly standard instruction.
These two sets of counsel hate each other at this point and it will become even more contentious as this wears on. Merchan wanted this three ring circus, a bit late to put a stop to it, barring declaring a mistrial or dismissing it altogether. The state's case is a clowncar at this point.
Calling sidebars for every objection makes the trial last longer, thus it meets the objective.
LOL OLD
They were civil cases.annie88 said:
There is no crime here.
There was no crime in any of the trials they brought against Trump.
I could see how that play out to your advantage on appeal. If you object but only lay out one ground then on appeal you think of another ground you should have objected on, you could be screwed on appeal. If the just won't let you say anything other than, "objection" then on appeal, it is any ground you can think of.aggiehawg said:Unless there is a need to make a record for purposes of appeal. Lawyers sometimes have to take a bullet for their clients.GeorgiAg said:Yeah speaking objections are generally a no-noIm Gipper said:
I'd say it likely means just state the objection and not start argument. Fairly standard instruction.
I am not sure the sidebars are being taken down by the court reporter? Are they?
If I'm the attorney on the other side, I would want to know the ground(s), so I could correct it if the question is defective.
I don't think side bars are taken down, which is a problem. If you want to perfect the record, you'd have to ask the judge to excuse the jury.
So the Defence attorneys can not even ask the witnesses,"To your knowledge has President Trump been convicted of a crime?"?aggiehawg said:Cannot call for a legal conclusion from a witness, unless I guess they have been qualified as an expert witness and even then, unlikely to be allowed.TexAg1987 said:
At what point does the defense get to say that there is no evidence of a crime?
Do they have to wait for the prosecution to rest?
…….
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
You could theoretically ask any witness that if its relevant, they have reliable knowledge of the answer, and the answer is not overly prejudicial.richardag said:So the Defence attorneys can not even ask the witnesses,"To your knowledge has President Trump been convicted of a crime?"?aggiehawg said:Cannot call for a legal conclusion from a witness, unless I guess they have been qualified as an expert witness and even then, unlikely to be allowed.TexAg1987 said:
At what point does the defense get to say that there is no evidence of a crime?
Do they have to wait for the prosecution to rest?
…….
That would seem to be an irrelevant question in this case.
GeorgiAg said:They were civil cases.annie88 said:
There is no crime here.
There was no crime in any of the trials they brought against Trump.
Ok. What's the felony here?
Not thinking highly of the judge, thus far. The prosecution is coming more into focus but not in a good way for them. They dn't get to fill in the blanks in their indictment after the trial has commenced and jeopardy has attached. A superceding indictment would have cleared much of this up but of course would have consumed time to get one.annie88 said:
Hawg,
What is your overall summary of the trial so far? I will read through more of the specific on here later, but just a general quick rundown.
TIA
Further, there was always the use of a sealed indictment while Trump was President which would have had the effect of tolling the misdemeanor statute of limitations had the prosecution taken that route.
IOW, the Manhattan DA's office had several bites at the apple well before now.
I disagree. A VERY questionable prosecution is brought against a national candidate for office, and as such, said candidate has been told he MUST be in attendance and cannot campaign nationwide.TXAggie2011 said:Its not even colorable that Texas would have standing to sue another state for bringing a criminal prosecution, even if the defendant is a candidate for national officeaggiehawg said:Neither did Roe in Roe v. Wade as she was no longer pregnant when the case was heard. When they want to, SCOTUS can get around those pesky things like actual controversy, ripeness, mootness and standing.Quote:
They wouldn't have had standing for that ever.
They are not final because they are infallible, they are infallible because they are final. But even then they can reverse themselves and do on occasion.
Further, the prosecution, led by Alvin Bragg, who CAMPAINGED on targeting one person - the defendant, has revealed today that the basis for bringing this action is ANOTHER New York midemeanor. One which in which the defendant has never been charged, and is ALSO out of statute of limitiations.
The case fails on its face. Summary judgement should be immediately granted in favor of the defendant. The fact it is not raises suspicion that the entire case - again, one that is brought in a Democrat voting state which has done so for the last 40 years - is a political conspriracy in and of itself designed and perpetrated to keep an opposition presidential candidate from campaigning.
This prosecutor is guilty of the very law he is "not" charging Trump with.
And it affects the State of Texas. No standing my ass!
Will the judge hold them to that? If so, then why would he let this proceed?aggiehawg said:Not thinking highly of the judge, thus far. The prosecution is coming more into focus but not in a good way for them. They dn't get to fill in the blanks in their indictment after the trial has commenced and jeopardy has attached. A superceding indictment would have cleared much of this up but of course would have consumed time to get one.annie88 said:
Hawg,
What is your overall summary of the trial so far? I will read through more of the specific on here later, but just a general quick rundown.
TIA
Further, there was always the use of a sealed indictment while Trump was President which would have had the effect of tolling the misdemeanor statute of limitations had the prosecution taken that route.
IOW, the Manhattan DA's office had several bites at the apple well before now.
LOL OLD
Orange man feloniously pissed off New Yorkers.Rockdoc said:GeorgiAg said:They were civil cases.annie88 said:
There is no crime here.
There was no crime in any of the trials they brought against Trump.
Ok. What's the felony here?
It's a pretty weak case. Probably some misdemeanors but not a felony.
Are you really trying to stand behind those pitiful arguments? Sometimes, as an attorney, you're probably better off not throwing yourself under the partisan bus...TXAggie2011 said:Its not really huge. None of that really matters. But FWIW, New York is going to use (or is likely going to use) multiple underlying crimes, including federal felonies...Quote:If I understand this correctly, this is huge.Quote:
Too little, too late. State cannot pivot and add charges not in the indictment once trial has started and jeopardy has attached. And not even a felony! Oy vey! What a mess!
Piling misdemeanor upon misdemeanor usually does not make a felony case. I see no reason why it would here.
We always assumed that Bragg was relying on some unnamed federal crime to bootstrap his misdemeanor charges against Trump onto in order to make them felonious...thereby providing the justification to extend the statute of limitiations on the allegations.
But now it is revealed that no, it isn't a federal statute that they are relying upon. Rather, it is a New York state election statute. So among the snakes in Pandora's Box now opened:
- they're bootstrapping a misdemeanor onto a misdemeanor in order to claim a felony (as hawg has already noted); BUT, the statute of limitations on BOTH misdemeanors have run.
- instead of arguing federal statute, in which they could claim that they have no control over the prosecution of, they're pointing to a STATE statute, in which they have exclusive control over prosecuting for - but have not charged Trump under this statute.
Merchan says we're moving on, but agrees with the government and references the three theories he will allow the prosecution to pursue re: the predicate. Here they are, as a reminder.
— Tyler McBrien (@TylerMcBrien) April 23, 2024
Full order: https://t.co/zdrlScVJBU pic.twitter.com/5Ili8Dmi0Z
(1) How does any rational human being allege an illegal campaing contribution made by the attorney of the defendant in which the defendant repaid the attorney using personal funds. There are NO restrictions of a candidate making contributions to his own candidacy as far as I am aware. I am surprised that you as an attorney aren't at all concerned with the precedent of how this could be misused in the future of one acting as agent for an individual. This is a dangerous position to advocate for, imo.
(2) Again, a New York misdemeanor statute that is out of SOL further than the alleged coverup? Never been charged, much less convicted. Any attempt to try or convict him of this crime now in order to justify the administrative crime should never be allowed to happen in a courtroom and you know that. Stop deflecting!
(3) Tax Law? Are you kidding me? I don't know how you bill, but I've never been billed by an attorney where I am not paying for the attorney's services in addition to expenses. And I'm pretty dammed sure that any taxes that the attorney is going to have to pay as income tax on my project will be included in the invoice. If Cohen billed Trump for "legal services" and that number included Stormy's payment as well as taxes that Cohen would have to pay, that's on Cohen, not Trump.
I'm getting really tired of Abbe Lowell type BS from attorneys who try to twist the law for POLITICAL gain. And I imagine others are getting really tired of it as well.
GeorgiAg said:Orange man feloniously pissed off New Yorkers.Rockdoc said:GeorgiAg said:They were civil cases.annie88 said:
There is no crime here.
There was no crime in any of the trials they brought against Trump.
Ok. What's the felony here?
It's a pretty weak case. Probably some misdemeanors but not a felony.
If even that.
fredfredunderscorefred
Joined:
Sep 14, 2003
Posts:
3,489
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There is literal and specific reasonable doubt built in to their charges and allegations. Trump the super-mastermind INTENDED to commit other crimes but he was so smart that even the state can't say what he intended to do. The state can't say it is beyond a reasonable doubt that trump intended to commit theory 1 considering the state itself has doubt that he committed that theory. Rinse and repeat for each theory. NO reasonable person should agree with this banana republic trash we are seeing.TXAggie2011 said:Its not really huge. None of that really matters. But FWIW, New York is going to use (or is likely going to use) multiple underlying crimes, including federal felonies...Quote:If I understand this correctly, this is huge.Quote:
Too little, too late. State cannot pivot and add charges not in the indictment once trial has started and jeopardy has attached. And not even a felony! Oy vey! What a mess!
Piling misdemeanor upon misdemeanor usually does not make a felony case. I see no reason why it would here.
We always assumed that Bragg was relying on some unnamed federal crime to bootstrap his misdemeanor charges against Trump onto in order to make them felonious...thereby providing the justification to extend the statute of limitiations on the allegations.
But now it is revealed that no, it isn't a federal statute that they are relying upon. Rather, it is a New York state election statute. So among the snakes in Pandora's Box now opened:
- they're bootstrapping a misdemeanor onto a misdemeanor in order to claim a felony (as hawg has already noted); BUT, the statute of limitations on BOTH misdemeanors have run.
- instead of arguing federal statute, in which they could claim that they have no control over the prosecution of, they're pointing to a STATE statute, in which they have exclusive control over prosecuting for - but have not charged Trump under this statute.
Merchan says we're moving on, but agrees with the government and references the three theories he will allow the prosecution to pursue re: the predicate. Here they are, as a reminder.
— Tyler McBrien (@TylerMcBrien) April 23, 2024
Full order: https://t.co/zdrlScVJBU pic.twitter.com/5Ili8Dmi0Z
Obviously not. That ship has sailed. Only way for Merchan to reverse himself now is declare a mistrial, which he won't do. If he declared a mistrial, Bragg's office could try to refile a new superceding indictment and retry the case but that would take time to accomplish. Time is of the essnce to obtain a conviction by any means necessary before the election.Quote:
Will the judge hold them to that? If so, then why would he let this proceed?
Proving once again, this is all about politics, not any sense of justice.
There was a cleaner way to bring this case. Most likely still would have ultimately failed based on the facts but they could have crafted a tighter case, citing all of the statutes involved instead of hiding from them.
Is it now going to be illegal for politicians to make non disclosure agreements to protect themselves from any random person that accuses them of sexual assault? Bragg is essentially saying that it is illegal to pay someone not to tell their story, since that would "corruptly influence the election". So any random person can come out of the wood work, accuse a famous politician of sexual assault and there's absolutely no defense. The only option is for them to resign in disgrace like Andrew Cuomo.
Has been that way since Clarence Thomas. Difference being, Congress critters have their suits paid by taxpayer funds to go away and kept quiet. Open that fund up to sunlight and who did what to whom when. Let them answer to their constitutents for once and cut off taxpayer funds for that crap.Casual Cynic said:
Is it now going to be illegal for politicians to make non disclosure agreements to protect themselves from any random person that accuses them of sexual assault? Bragg is essentially saying that it is illegal to pay someone not to tell their story, since that would "corruptly influence the election". So any random person can come out of the wood work, accuse a famous politician of sexual assault and there's absolutely no defense. The only option is for them to resign in disgrace like Andrew Cuomo.
Rules for thee and not for me, though.
they pay them because they had sex with them and dontwant the truth to get out
Old Army has gone to hell.
This is a SouthPark episode we are living.
Thanks for that link to the court order. It answers a lot of questions that keep getting asked here again and again.
Rockdoc said:GeorgiAg said:They were civil cases.annie88 said:
.. GoThere is no crime here.
There was no crime in any of the trials they brought against Trump.
Ok. What's the felony here?
GMaster0 said:Rockdoc said:GeorgiAg said:They were civil cases.annie88 said:
.. GoThere is no crime here.
There was no crime in any of the trials they brought against Trump.
Ok. What's the felony here?
GeorgiAg said:I could see how that play out to your advantage on appeal. If you object but only lay out one ground then on appeal you think of another ground you should have objected on, you could be screwed on appeal. If the just won't let you say anything other than, "objection" then on appeal, it is any ground you can think of.aggiehawg said:Unless there is a need to make a record for purposes of appeal. Lawyers sometimes have to take a bullet for their clients.GeorgiAg said:Yeah speaking objections are generally a no-noIm Gipper said:
I'd say it likely means just state the objection and not start argument. Fairly standard instruction.
I am not sure the sidebars are being taken down by the court reporter? Are they?
If I'm the attorney on the other side, I would want to know the ground(s), so I could correct it if the question is defective.
I don't think side bars are taken down, which is a problem. If you want to perfect the record, you'd have to ask the judge to excuse the jury.
An offer of proof, if evidence/testimony was excluded, or a motion to strike, if evidence/testimony was admitted, would provide the opportunity to get the specific basis for the objection on the record.
And, yes, if the judge is an a-hole, you just have to respectfully put yourself out there and do whats right for your client while trying to avoid creating lasting animosity with that judge.
What really sucks is if evidence is admitted after an objection, an attorney is required to object each time that evidence is brought up again. Not necessarily every question (this can depend on the state), but every time it is used in a new line of questioning. An attorney can ask for a continuing or running objection, but if the judge doesn't allow it then the attorney must keep objecting, which can then turn the jury, and the judge, against that attorney for appearing to be a pain in the ass (even though they are really just preserving the record for appeal).
So far, I have not heard anything about this federal election law violation, just NY 17-152 which has its own issues. It is just a misdemeanor as well and requires unlawful means, which NDAs and catch and kill are not.aggiehawg said:
Now Byron York:LINKQuote:
An example Conroy gave was on Truth Social, in which Trump posted a link to an April 2023 article by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy that appeared in National Review. The headline of the article was "No, Cohen's Guilty Plea Does Not Prove Trump Committed Campaign-Finance Crimes," and the subheadline was "Unpacking a weak argument for Alvin Bragg's weak case against the former president." The story was legal analysis, pure and simple persuasive legal analysis, at that and yet Merchan has forbidden Trump from citing it and has threatened Trump with fines or even jail for pointing it out.
Another example of an alleged Trump gag order violation was his reposting of a New York Post
column by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. The headline was, "A serial perjurer will try to prove an old misdemeanor against Trump in an embarrassment for the New York legal system." The "serial perjurer" referred to Cohen unfortunately for Cohen, that's an accurate description and Turley wrote that Bragg's prosecutors have used Cohen "to convert a dead state misdemeanor into a felony based on an alleged federal election crime that was rejected by the Justice Department," which is also accurate.
So even the opinions of legal analysts violates the gag order if Trump made reference to them on Truth Social?
Every Dem pol and everyone who votes for Dems are complete clowns.
If you're paying enough attention to this trial for it to change your vote, you are seeing what a load of garbage it is. I believe more will vote FOR Trump over this case than will refuse to vote for him.Rockdoc said:annie88 said:Science Denier said:Gyles Marrett said:Here's why I don't believe that....explain how his support in the polls went up with indictments, yet somehow we are supposed to believe those that increased supporting him for being indicted would then take that support back if convicted of those indictments. Doesn't pass the logic test.Science Denier said:Im Gipper said:Do you have a link to that poll? Very interesting! Most polls I have seen show most think this is a political witch hunt.Quote:
Polls show that if he's convicted many that would vote for him won't. It's a huge issue.
A very quick search shows this one. There are many more
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4441241-trump-poll-convictions-deep-trouble/amp/
Convictions are different than indictments. There are people that that believe in the courts to judge BS indictments that are later overturned and those that lead in convictions.
Doesn't matter to me, but it does to others.
I think if anything it'll make more people vote for Trump, even though they might not have to begin with. The ones that aren't gonna vote for him we're already not going to vote for him.
These trials and especially this one are a new level of bull**** and even some non-people are starting to see that.
This conviction won't make any difference with the voters. They expect it. They also know it won't hold when appealed all the way up.
Imo, not one single Trump follower is leaving him over this or any other conviction. I also dont see any never trumpers changing to voting for trump because of over reaching cases brought against him.
The question is for the moderate independent swing voters. Will any of them be swayed either way ? Will a conviction matter, or will they be inclined to vote for him because they think he is being unfairly targeted ? We shall see.
The question is for the moderate independent swing voters. Will any of them be swayed either way ? Will a conviction matter, or will they be inclined to vote for him because they think he is being unfairly targeted ? We shall see.
Gigem
Quote:
According to Fox News, "New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass on Tuesday said the other crime was a violation of a New York law called 'conspiracy to promote or prevent election.'"
That law, New York Law 17-152, reads:Speaking of Michael Cohen, former National Enquirer owner David Pecker, and Donald Trump, Steinglass' co-counsel Michael Colangelo argued that in 2015:Quote:
Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.However, none of the allegedly falsified business records were dated in 2015; every alleged instance was in 2017. The falsified payments are transactions in which Trump's business paid Cohen; Trump says the payments were for legal services and not reimbursement for any monies Cohen might have paid to Stormy Daniels.Quote:
"Those three men formed a conspiracy to influence the election."
Quote:
There are a few legal problems with the prosecution's theory. First, non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are not illegal, and the underlying statute says that there has to be a conspiracy "to promote or prevent the election...by unlawful means."
Quote:
Second, as Andrew McCarthy pointed out, there is nothing in the indictment about a scheme or conspiracy:Quote:
The grand jury did not accuse Trump of a 'scheme' much less a conspiracy in its indictment. This is a matter of Bragg using a 'Statement of Facts' he wrote in order to spin the grand jury's indictment into a grand election-theft conspiracy that the grand jury did not actually charge.
I'll repeat that because it bears noting: The grand jury did not accuse Trump of a "scheme" much less a conspiracy in its indictment. This is a matter of Bragg using a "Statement of Facts" he wrote in order to spin the grand jury's indictment into a grand election-theft conspiracy that the grand jury did not actually charge.
Bragg cannot use the word conspiracy because a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. It is not a crime to suppress damaging information that is something politicians do all the time. Withholding information is only a crime when there is a legal obligation to divulge the information. Politicians, of course, are not legally required to divulge extramarital affairs in political campaigns.
LINKQuote:
If this silly legal fairy tale somehow results in a conviction, all of the people involved in "catch-and-kill" related to the 2020 election, including the 51 former intelligence officials who lied about the origins of the Hunter Biden laptop story, those who arranged for the New York Post's story to be censored, and people who conspired to deplatform those who said anything negative about Joe Biden, better watch out.
Just cannot get to a felony that way, none that I can see anyway.
personally, I think Trump did do the actions that he's accused of here. I just don't think it raises to the level of a crime. and if it does violate some weird NY statute, its not disqualifying in my opinion for the presidency.