It certainly could get overturned, but the thought that the judge and prosecutors did things they KNOW will be overturned is not something that makes sense.
34 charges 34 convictions,
- Thread starter urfan1
- Start date
Hardly a rant. Confusing for you, but parody of Alvin Bragg’s election interference trial. And true to form for Never Trumpers, change the topic and make false accusations.
Alvin Bragg and Juan Marchan have the same motive- to get Trump. Judges and prosecutors have inate biases. This was a show trial, bolstered by classic forum and judge shopping. The goal was to hang the convicted felon label onto Trump. With this case, there are multiple layers of reversible error, beginning with the failure to grant a change of venue. You should recognize these biases exist, especially from hyper-partisan jurists.
I'm not sure how a change-of-venue was warranted based solely on the percentage of the vote Trump received or didn't receive in that particular locale. Most people who are on trial don't have any data about how popular they may or may not be within a given jurisdiction, so they can't request a change of venue based upon that. Trump is a citizen, too. Just because we do happen to have voter data related to him from that particular locale doesn't mean he's entitled to have extra rights (that a normal person wouldn't have) to request a new venue.
Even if any of this nonsense were true (which it isn't), what's the motive for the members of the jury to vote 364 times to convict? Unanimous on all 34 counts.
The jury was presented with the facts. The defense had its say. Trump was too chicken to even testify. All 12 jury members thought he was guilty on all 364 of their votes.
You should recognize the jury looked at the facts, listened to the evidence, followed the obvious paper trail, and voted to convict. All 34 times.
Why you people continue to defend and financially support that absolute, complete selfish POS is beyond me.
Calling Alvin Bragg "not a particularly bright fellow"? Have you heard him speak? He speaks calmly and intelligently. He graduated from Harvard and Harvard Law. I assume you went to Richmond, as did I. I love UR, but with all due respect to UR, it isn't Harvard and especially wasn't so when I and, I assume you, went there. So if he's not a particularly bright fellow what does that make you and me? I'm offended!
Not sure why I post in off topic. We are obviously experiencing different realities, so these discussions are simply frustrating.
This is a very good analysis of some of the errors in Trumps recent felony prosecution. Even Donald Trump has the right to Due Process.
“No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge,” the Supreme Court stated in Cole v. Arkansas (1948), “and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, [is] among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal. In in re Winship (1970), the justices affirmed that “the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” These three due-process precepts—notice, meaningful opportunity to defend, and proof of all elements—were absent in Mr. Trump’s trial."...
"Mr. Trump, like all criminal defendants, was entitled to due process. The Constitution demands that higher courts throw out the verdict against him. That takes time, however, and is unlikely to occur before the election. That unfortunate reality will widen America’s political divide and fuel the suspicion that Mr. Trump’s prosecution wasn’t about enforcing the law but wounding a presidential candidate for the benefit of his opponent.".
Mr. Rivkin served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations. Ms. Foley is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law. Both practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington.
“No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge,” the Supreme Court stated in Cole v. Arkansas (1948), “and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, [is] among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal. In in re Winship (1970), the justices affirmed that “the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” These three due-process precepts—notice, meaningful opportunity to defend, and proof of all elements—were absent in Mr. Trump’s trial."...
"Mr. Trump, like all criminal defendants, was entitled to due process. The Constitution demands that higher courts throw out the verdict against him. That takes time, however, and is unlikely to occur before the election. That unfortunate reality will widen America’s political divide and fuel the suspicion that Mr. Trump’s prosecution wasn’t about enforcing the law but wounding a presidential candidate for the benefit of his opponent.".
Mr. Rivkin served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations. Ms. Foley is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law. Both practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington.
The article continues...
Mr. Trump’s indictment didn’t specify the other crime he allegedly intended to commit. Prosecutors didn’t do so during the trial either. Only after the evidentiary phase of the trial did Judge Juan Merchan reveal that the other crime was Section 17-152 of New York’s election law, which makes it a misdemeanor to engage in a conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”
To recap, the prosecution involved (1) a misdemeanor elevated to a felony based on an “intent to commit another crime,” (2) an indictment and trial that failed to specify, or present evidence establishing, another crime the defendant intended to commit, and (3) a jury instruction that the other crime was one that necessitated further proof of “unlawful means.” It’s a Russian-nesting-doll theory of criminality: The charged crime hinged on the intent to commit another, unspecified crime, which in turn hinged on the actual commission of yet another unspecified offense.
Mr. Trump’s indictment didn’t specify the other crime he allegedly intended to commit. Prosecutors didn’t do so during the trial either. Only after the evidentiary phase of the trial did Judge Juan Merchan reveal that the other crime was Section 17-152 of New York’s election law, which makes it a misdemeanor to engage in a conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”
To recap, the prosecution involved (1) a misdemeanor elevated to a felony based on an “intent to commit another crime,” (2) an indictment and trial that failed to specify, or present evidence establishing, another crime the defendant intended to commit, and (3) a jury instruction that the other crime was one that necessitated further proof of “unlawful means.” It’s a Russian-nesting-doll theory of criminality: The charged crime hinged on the intent to commit another, unspecified crime, which in turn hinged on the actual commission of yet another unspecified offense.
Well “ Bless your little heart “, take two aspirin and if not feeling better in the morning, call your doctor.
You missed the point, once again, DT, said enough is enough with the DEM warfare, time to forget and move forward. Ending the divisive past. Pay attention.
Woody what took you long to weigh in. Out of touch as usual, but besides:; Why did you change your avatar? I’m pissed that you dumped The Natural one, based on your NY history, very disappointing.
The DT, election interference trial, Alan Dershowitz said is best; Today DT, tomorrow you, tomorrow me, and tomorrow your loved ones. Judical warfare. There were so many irregularities, but the biggest failure was the jury did not keep the prosecutor and judge in check.
Last edited:
I heard it and understand DT doublespeak, What he means is he will pursue prosecution if he feels payback is called for OR if it benefits DT.
Well, since I don't boink porn stars while my wife is pregnant and then pay them $150,00 to be quiet; since I didn't call the Georgia Secretary of State and ask him to commit election fraud; since I didn't take classified documents home with me after I no longer was president, and then hide them and obstruct a judicial investigation; since I didn't incite a crowd to riot, trash the Capitol in an attempt to nullify an election, or since I didn't do any of the other of the 91 indictments that have been served on Trump, I'll take my chances that Johnny Law won't be coming after me.
Again, how any of you can begin to defend or continue to support that fat, criminal POS is beyond me. Who is the one out of touch here?
PS: I did here that Trump has made a deal with the Feds. To avoid prison, he instead will leave public life, take a vow of silence and join a monastery. His new monastical name will be Felonious Monk.
The Supreme Court has overruled the NY regulators and NY Courts that tried to destroy the NRA by attacking insurers. The case is NRA v. Vullo. Ms. Vullo is facing personal liability. The case has been remanded to the trial court, in upstate NY. This does not bode well for Alvin Bragg.
"The Supreme Court decision in question is National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, issued today. The case arises out of the efforts of a New York regulator, Maria Vullo, then Superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, to destroy the NRA by threatening regulatory harassment against banks and insurance companies under her regulatory jurisdiction unless they agreed to stop doing business with the NRA. Vullo’s conduct, as set forth in the Supreme Court’s decision, was quite shockingly thuggish, at a level that you would think would cause even the crazed leftists in New York State government to slow down and think twice. But they operate in a bubble where no voices of sensible outsiders are able to penetrate....
The statement of facts in Justice Sotomayor’s opinion is dry, but still gives a remarkable sense of just how much Ms. Vullo thought she could get away with in going after a political enemy under the guise of her jurisdiction of “regulating banks and insurance companies.”...
Vullo brought a variety of insurance-law violations to the Lloyd’s executives’ attention during a private meeting in February 2018. The violations included technical infractions that allegedly plagued the affinity insurance market in New York and that were unrelated to any NRA business. . . . Vullo allegedly said she would be “less interested in pursuing the[se] infractions . . . so long as Lloyd’s ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA.” . . .
www.manhattancontrarian.com
"The Supreme Court decision in question is National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, issued today. The case arises out of the efforts of a New York regulator, Maria Vullo, then Superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, to destroy the NRA by threatening regulatory harassment against banks and insurance companies under her regulatory jurisdiction unless they agreed to stop doing business with the NRA. Vullo’s conduct, as set forth in the Supreme Court’s decision, was quite shockingly thuggish, at a level that you would think would cause even the crazed leftists in New York State government to slow down and think twice. But they operate in a bubble where no voices of sensible outsiders are able to penetrate....
The statement of facts in Justice Sotomayor’s opinion is dry, but still gives a remarkable sense of just how much Ms. Vullo thought she could get away with in going after a political enemy under the guise of her jurisdiction of “regulating banks and insurance companies.”...
Vullo brought a variety of insurance-law violations to the Lloyd’s executives’ attention during a private meeting in February 2018. The violations included technical infractions that allegedly plagued the affinity insurance market in New York and that were unrelated to any NRA business. . . . Vullo allegedly said she would be “less interested in pursuing the[se] infractions . . . so long as Lloyd’s ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA.” . . .
Today's Scorecard For New York's Kangaroo Legal System — Manhattan Contrarian
The kangaroos’ request shown above, as reported yesterday on X by the Babylon Bee , may not be completely justified with respect to the U.S. federal justice system. It remains to be seen how the prosecutions of our ex-President play out in that arena. However, the kangaroos’ request is 100% jus
www.manhattancontrarian.com
I am waiting for your response to the Rivkin and Foley article (cited above), which laid out the violations of President Trump's Due Process rights both by the prosecution and the court. They didn't even spell out the crime. In our system of justice, prosecutors and judges have a wide latitude in handling issues before them. In the matter of Trump, there was an extensive abuse of the court's discretion. By the way, just because an attorney went to an Ivy league school doesn't mean he is smart.
I agree with most of what you said. Donald Trump is a classless individual, as were Bill and Hillary Clinton. However, everyone has the right to Due Process, including those you do not like.
Isn't a public trial in front of a judge who bent over backward to accommodate him; a trial where the defendant is represented by an expensive legal team; a trial where the defendant had every opportunity to testify and give his version of the facts; a trial where the defense gets to cross examine every witness the prosecution calls, and offer their own witnesses in response, the very definition of due process?
If recent events have shown anything, it's the Wall Street Journal has as much credibility as the tabloids they sell at the supermarket checkout stand.
I share your opinion of the Clintons. However, they were much smarter and ran/run circles around Trump as far as being effective public servants.
Can’t argue that DT is a despicable person.. I suspect not as many support him as you would believe, based on recent polling they just dislike his opponent more.
This is also a reversible error. But I doubt the judge will vacate the verdict.
The judge presiding over former President Trump’s New York criminal trial notified his defense team on Friday of a comment on the court's public Facebook page that implies one of the jurors discussed the guilty verdict with family before the trial concluded.
NY v. Trump: Judge reveals Facebook post implying juror discussed guilty verdict before trial concluded
www.foxnews.com
The judge presiding over former President Trump’s New York criminal trial notified his defense team on Friday of a comment on the court's public Facebook page that implies one of the jurors discussed the guilty verdict with family before the trial concluded.
NY v. Trump: Judge reveals Facebook post implying juror discussed guilty verdict before trial concluded
NY v. Trump: Judge reveals Facebook post implying juror discussed guilty verdict before trial concluded
The judge presiding over former President Trump’s New York criminal trial notified his defense team on Friday of a comment on the court's public Facebook page that implies one of the jurors discussed the guilty verdict ahead of time.
The prosecution of Bob McDonell a popular Republican Governor of Virgina by the Obama Administration is an excellent example. Obama Justice began investigating Gov. McDonell in his 3rd year of office. He was indicted shortly after leaving office in January 21, 2014. He was convicted on September 4, 2014 and sentenced to 2 years in prison on Jan 6, 2015. On June 6, 2016, his conviction was unanimously overturned by the US Supreme Court. Obama Justice did this to protect Mark Warner from being challenged for US Senate in 2016. It cost Gov. McDonell 3M to secure an acquittal. It was highly successful as it ruined Republican statewide leadership for 15 years and cemented Democratic control of the state under Tim Kaine, Mark Warner and Terry McAuliffe. This became the blueprint for Democratic lawfare we see today.
There were at least 13 reversible errors. This is the most glaring.
1. The Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution and Article III, §16 of the New York Constitution require that a defendant receive adequate notice of the crimes being charged so that he can prepare a defense. Waiting until the last hours of a case, after the defense has rested, or has no further right to speak to the jury, cannot satisfy this fundamental protection..
americanmind.org
1. The Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution and Article III, §16 of the New York Constitution require that a defendant receive adequate notice of the crimes being charged so that he can prepare a defense. Waiting until the last hours of a case, after the defense has rested, or has no further right to speak to the jury, cannot satisfy this fundamental protection..
Reversible Errors
The Democrats are far better at weaponizing the justice system than the Republicans are at preventing them from doing so.
americanmind.org
Feel free to refute this analysis at any time.There were at least 13 reversible errors. This is the most glaring.
1. The Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution and Article III, §16 of the New York Constitution require that a defendant receive adequate notice of the crimes being charged so that he can prepare a defense. Waiting until the last hours of a case, after the defense has rested, or has no further right to speak to the jury, cannot satisfy this fundamental protection..
Reversible Errors
The Democrats are far better at weaponizing the justice system than the Republicans are at preventing them from doing so.
Post has already been shown to be a scam.This is also a reversible error. But I doubt the judge will vacate the verdict.
The judge presiding over former President Trump’s New York criminal trial notified his defense team on Friday of a comment on the court's public Facebook page that implies one of the jurors discussed the guilty verdict with family before the trial concluded.
NY v. Trump: Judge reveals Facebook post implying juror discussed guilty verdict before trial concluded
NY v. Trump: Judge reveals Facebook post implying juror discussed guilty verdict before trial concluded
The judge presiding over former President Trump’s New York criminal trial notified his defense team on Friday of a comment on the court's public Facebook page that implies one of the jurors discussed the guilty verdict ahead of time.
I don't
I don't recall hearing of the defense motion that the charging documents were inadequate, they must have thought they knew what the charges were.
The odds are Trump will go to jail. They are preparing a spot for Trump.
www.mirror.co.uk
Prison bosses preparing to house Donald Trump if he's sentenced to jail
Trump, 77, is set to be sentenced on July 11 after being found guilty of 34 felony counts last month over falsifying business records to stop adult actress Stormy Daniels speaking about alleged extramarital sex with him
www.mirror.co.uk
The attack ads practically write themselves. One ad calls Trump a convicted criminal, who is only out for himself. I still maintain that Trump is unelectable. Lawfare is now the standard play book for democrats' electoral victories.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/17/biden-ad-trump-convicted-criminal-00163633
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/17/biden-ad-trump-convicted-criminal-00163633
