ChiGoose

More doxxing by Trump supporters

Is there another quote missing somewhere? The quoted message just says he loves and supports his son. I don’t see anything about him not doing anything wrong or being innocent.

Russian news saying they could drop 30+ nukes on Poland to eliminate the Polish people and language. Claim they do not believe the US would defend the Poland or the Baltic States so they can just take them.

Worst. Superhero. Ever.

Do you think that this is the first time 175.10 has ever been charged? Or that this is the first time that charging 175.10, a statute that requires an intent to commit a separate crime, was charged that the defendant intended to commit a separate crime?

Demented Joe needs meds to give a speech but also controls the Michigan bar.

Trump's lawyers and lawyer's pushing Trump's claims get themselves in trouble so often, it's hard to keep track. Thought it might be easier to just put the misfeasance in one place. I imagine I've missed a few but this is a good start. Lin Wood agreed to retire from law and surrender his Georgia law license to avoid disciplinary cases (NYT) Lin Wood was also sanctioned in Michigan (AP) Sidney Powell, Howard Kleinhandler, Julia Zsuzsa Haller, Scott Hagerstrom, Brandon Johnson, and Gregory Rohl were sanctioned and fined in Michigan (Reuters) Rudy Giuliani had his New York law license suspended (AP) DC ethics board recommended Rudy Giuliani to be disbarred (NBC) DC Bar officials recommend disbarment for Jeffrey Clark (Bloomberg Law) California bar court recommended disbarment for John Eastman (State Bar of California) Jenna Ellis was barred from practicing law in Colorado for three years (AP) Clifford Robert, Michael Farina, Christopher Kise, Michael Madaio, and Armen Morian were sanctioned in New York (NY Courts) Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro, Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, and Ray Smith were indicted in Georgia (PBS) Stefanie Junttila and Matt DePerno were indicted in Michigan (Michigan Advance) Jenna Ellis pleaded guilty in Georgia (NYT) and Georgia (Politico) Kenneth Chesebro pleaded guilty in Georgia (NPR) Sidney Powell pleaded guilty in Georgia (NYT) Rudy Giuliani was indicted in Arizona (NBC) Christina Bobb, John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn, and Jenna Ellis were indicted in Arizona (Source NM) Alina Habba was sanctioned $1 million in Florida for filing frivolous lawsuits. (ABC - thanks @Scraps) Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations and other charges in New York (AP) Rudy Giuliani ordered to pay $148 million in Georgia defamation case (Reuters) Wisconsin AG charged Kenneth Chesebro and Jim Troupis for the fake electors scheme. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) Maybe they should have taken Eric Herschmann's advice... Trump Lawyer Stats Lawyers in Trouble: Christina Bobb Kenneth Chesebro Jeffrey Clark Matt DePerno John Eastman Jenna Ellis Boris Epshteyn Michael Farina Rudy Giuliani Scott Hagerstrom Brandon Johnson Stefanie Junttila Christopher Kise Howard Kleinhandler Michael Madaio Armen Morian Sidney Powell Clifford Robert Gregory Rohl Ray Smith Jim Troupis Lin Wood Julia Zsuzsa Haller Jurisdictions / State Bars: 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals California State Bar Colorado State Bar Court of Appeals of Michigan DC Bar Georgia State Bar Georgia Supreme Court New York Attorney Grievance Committee US District Court Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division Superior Court of Fulton County (Georgia) Superior Court of the State of Arizona Supreme Court of the State of Colorado Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division Wisconsin Circuit Court

Sums it up pretty well:

Remember that the crime Trump was actually charged and convicted of was falsifying the business records of the Trump Organization. He appears to have done so to hide a campaign contribution. Hillary also tried to cover up a campaign contribution and the FEC fined her for it. For some reason, the FEC did not fine Trump for doing the same thing.

0% chance it’s overturned for the judge not recusing. There isn’t really a strong argument for that. A ruling that the law was applied improperly would likely invalidate dozens of other convictions since, as far as I can tell, the law was applied here the same way it’s usually applied. What was improper about the jury instructions?

Last time I checked, this judge you’re upset about was not the judge in Trump’s Manhattan case.

I do have a kid and I’m totally fine living in a world where the laws are enforced.

In all sincerity, thank you for this. Lots of people claiming 100% chance of overturn without any reason why. If, as you claim, it was improper for the judge to bar testimony as to the law, it will be overturned on appeal. Bragg will have to decide if he wants to refile with the expectation that such testimony will be allowed. My prediction: won’t happen. Juries determine the facts. Judges determine the law. Allowing a witness to testify to the law means the jury determining the law, which isn’t how it works. That being said, if Merchan’s interpretation of the law was wrong, that could successfully be appealed as well. (I don’t think it was but your mileage may vary).

I read people I disagree with. It’s how you understand the whole of an issue.

When I see something I don’t understand, I try to look it up and understand it better. It seems that some people prefer to just jump to a conclusion that confirms whatever prior belief they have.

Did she pay out of the Clinton Foundation and then falsify the Foundation’s business records to cover it up? As I’ve said all along, if Trump had just paid out of the campaign funds, he would have been fine.

Not sure which is the most ironic thread in PPP, this one or the one about projection.

Ok, so can you not actually read? I’m beginning to wonder if I’m talking to someone with severe disabilities and I feel bad for making them demonstrate to the world how dumb they are…

Gonna guess that the Houthis aren’t exactly reliable narrators. There’s a pretty good difference between launching an attack and succeeding in an attack. I could throw a rock at an airplane flying overhead and tell the press I launched an attack on United Airlines but I don’t think a lot of people would take it seriously. Yemen's Houthis say they launched attack on US aircraft carrier Eisenhower in Red Sea

Just providing context for my yes answer. I didn’t realize I was dealing with someone with reading issues. I’ll try to keep things to about a 6th grade level for you moving forward. My bad!

Literally answered in the fourth sentence. Reading is fundamental. The more you post, the more you’re embarrassing yourself.

Pretty good analysis. There’s always room to disagree on the law. If it was clear and obvious, we wouldn’t need lawyers. This being a high profile state case when most commentators are federal practitioners, it’s led to a lot of disagreement. Trump will appeal, and he absolutely should. It’s his right and it’s what any defendant in his shoes would do. I just fail to understand the abundant confidence that he will assuredly win on appeal.

Jinx, lol

If the evidence was simply Cohen vs Trump, I think that’d leave a lot of room for doubt. But there were over 200 exhibits in this case and much of Cohen’s testimony was corroborated by people friendly to Trump like Pxcker, McConney, and Hicks. The judge even told the jury they could not convict Trump solely on Cohen’s testimony. So you have an unreliable witness but most of what he said was already testified to by other witnesses, several of whom were still friendly to the defendant.

Very telling that you don't think it matters what the reason an appeal might be successful is and that even considering what the ultimate reversable error that will lead to an overturn is a red herring. The very first thing you'd need to win on appeal is an actual reason you should win on appeal... Lots of people seem to expect an overturn based solely on feels, I suppose If it's overturned, I'll accept it. I won't like it, and I might not agree with the reasoning, but I'll have to accept it because that's how the rule of law works. You accept it even if you don't like it. However, this statute gets charged all of the time in NY. For decades. And the upper courts in NY have been totally fine with it. I do not expect them to overturn the conviction based on how the law was applied. If they had a problem with that, they would have done away with that interpretation of the law years ago. If it's overturned in the NY courts, my guess would likely be a Molineux issue with Stormy Daniels' testimony around the sexual encounter. Ultimately, it would be sent back for retrial and Trump would likely still be convicted because the testimony really isn't necessary for the conviction. It'd be annoying and take years to resolve, but the end result would be the same. I'm not going to predict what SCOTUS does. That court just likes to make it up as they go along. I can see them finding some way to interfere but I am unsure of the exact reasoning they will use. I've heard some people say it'll be presidential immunity, but how could paying off a porn star be a presidential act? You'd basically need complete presidential immunity, a thing we've never had in the history of this country (and is antithetical to our founding) and would in essence make the president a dictator. Which of course means that Biden can just assassinate Trump if he wants, so there's that.