Election Interference | Donald Trump + Stormy Daniels hush money case - GUILTY

[Big Blitz]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

13 hours ago, Doc said:

Since when does “mostly concerned” mean 55%? It doesn’t, in law, medicine or anywhere.  So you taking me to task for “making up numbers” is just silly. Shocker. 

It’s interesting that we have two of THE finest (maybe) legal minds (perhaps) on the entire subforum of THE most relevant (arguable) Bills website on THE planet and they seem to have issues with both the law and the interpretation of the law being used to put away the former President.   This commentary, of course, echos the larger debate on this topic as well.
 

At the same time, we, as humble witnesses to the spectacle. are cautioned against seeing bias and political shenanigans in the proceedings.  @muppy
 

 

 

[muppy]

oh SNAP here we go

 

lmaooooo

[ChiGoose]

24 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

How is it rigged if they are following standard process for this court?

[All_Pro_Bills]

4 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

With jury instructions from judge Robespierre to pick a crime and vote "yes".

[BillStime]

 

[ChiGoose]

That’s so weird. Why would he say this if he’s in the tank for the prosecution…?

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

15 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

That’s so weird. Why would he say this if he’s in the tank for the prosecution…?

 

 

You're suggesting that one statement defines the role of the judge in the case?  Is that how it works in practice?

 

 

[ChiGoose]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You're suggesting that one statement defines the role of the judge in the case?  Is that how it works in practice?

 

 

My point is that the claims here about the judge’s bias seem to be mostly built upon misunderstandings of how the courts in NYS work. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

My point is that the claims here about the judge’s bias seem to be mostly built upon misunderstandings of how the courts in NYS work. 

There is sustained debate of whether or not this case is purely political, whether or not Bragg took a novel approach to prosecuting this case, and decisions made by the judge throughout the course of the trial.  You then chose one statement, as reported, to suggest discussions on bias are unreasonable based on a system you, yourself, have raised questions about.  

[Pokebball]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

There is sustained debate of whether or not this case is purely political, whether or not Bragg took a novel approach to prosecuting this case, and decisions made by the judge throughout the course of the trial.  You then chose one statement, as reported, to suggest discussions on bias are unreasonable based on a system you, yourself, have raised questions about.  

this x 1000

[ChiGoose]

33 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

There is sustained debate of whether or not this case is purely political, whether or not Bragg took a novel approach to prosecuting this case, and decisions made by the judge throughout the course of the trial.  You then chose one statement, as reported, to suggest discussions on bias are unreasonable based on a system you, yourself, have raised questions about.  

My comment was specific to the claims that Merchan is biased against Trump, nothing else. 
 

Most of those claims being paraded about on PPP betray a lack of understanding of the court. 
 

When people see the judge acted in a way they don’t like, they just immediately assume bias instead of asking “how does this compare to how this issue is normally handled in this court?”

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

32 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

My comment was specific to the claims that Merchan is biased against Trump, nothing else. 
 

Most of those claims being paraded about on PPP betray a lack of understanding of the court. 
 

When people see the judge acted in a way they don’t like, they just immediately assume bias instead of asking “how does this compare to how this issue is normally handled in this court?”

It’s fair to suggest that people don’t know the normal processes of the court system.  Most, myself included, would not know what constitutes “normal”.  
 

In a case like this, however, where bias and politics are a significant factor—and legal observers of all stripes are weighing in with opinions ranging from purity to unquestioned neutrality, people are going to choose a side.   
 

The way I see it, it sounds an awful lot like  normal standards would not involve this case seeing a courtroom at all.  

[BillStime]

12 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It’s fair to suggest that people don’t know the normal processes of the court system.  Most, myself included, would not know what constitutes “normal”.  
 

In a case like this, however, where bias and politics are a significant factor—and legal observers of all stripes are weighing in with opinions ranging from purity to unquestioned neutrality, people are going to choose a side.   
 

The way I see it, it sounds an awful lot like  normal standards would not involve this case seeing a courtroom at all.  

Why did Trump’s DOJ think differently about those same campaign finance violations that sent Cohen to jail?

[All_Pro_Bills]

6 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Why did Trump’s DOJ think differently about those same campaign finance violations that sent Cohen to jail?

For one, the funds in this case were not campaign monies. The funds were from private sources obtained through legal means. 2nd, these charges are not brought by DOJ. So exactly what campaign finance law is Trump accused of violating under the Bragg indictments? None of the 34 counts mentions anything. And even if it did, those are Federal campaign law violations and the State's jurisdiction over such violations is suspect. This case is bogus and the judge is as crooked as they come.

Edited May 30 by All_Pro_Bills

[ChiGoose]

4 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

For one, the funds in this case were not campaign monies. The funds were from private sources obtained through legal means. 2nd, these charges are not brought by DOJ. So exactly what campaign finance law is Trump accused of violating under the Bragg indictments? None of the 34 counts mentions anything. And even if it did, those are Federal campaign law violations and the State's jurisdiction over such violations is suspect. This case is bogus and the judge is as crooked as they come.

There wouldn’t have been a crime if the payments were from campaign funds and properly disclosed. The allegation is that they used non-campaign funds to benefit the campaign so they could avoid disclosure. (Same thing Pxcker and Cohen got in trouble for).

 

The crimes charged are NYS crimes. To step up to a felony, they must have been committed to conceal another crime. The statute does not require that the concealed crime be a state crime or have been successfully committed. Just that the falsification of business records was done with the intent of covering up that crime. The allegations are that the falsification was done to cover up state election crimes, federal election crimes, tax crimes, and I believe additional document falsification crimes. Evidence for the elements of these crime were presented at trial. 

 

These types of charges are not uncommon in NY, including against past politicians. 
 

What has the judge done that deviates from the normal practice in NY enough to warrant a claim of bias?

[Tiberius]

Jury out a while, that's a good sign for Trump

[The Frankish Reich]

18 hours ago, Doc said:

Since when does “mostly concerned” mean 55%? It doesn’t, in law, medicine or anywhere.  So you taking me to task for “making up numbers” is just silly. Shocker. 

The law is weird. I mean, not just the law here, but the law in general.

War story: I'm a young lawyer. Writing a brief. Exactly this kind of issue. The applicable law makes no grammatical/logical sense - a party is liable if a shifting responsibility for an environmental cleanup is "a primary reason" for a doing a business deal.

I write the brief, arguing that shifting responsibility was, indeed, the primary reason for the deal in question.

My supervisor reviews it. Puts a big red pen mark crossing out "the" and a little ^ changing it to "a." I say, "but a primary reason doesn't make sense; there can only be one primary reason." [Look it up: "of first rank or importance." Two or more things cannot be of "first" rank. I was right as a matter of grammar and logic]

My boss: don't do that. Don't put your own spin on the statute. It is what it is. Maybe later on we'll want to argue that there were two reasons, each equally important. 

I learned my lesson. Never paraphrase. Don't think you're smarter than the statute. It's written by regular men and women and sometimes weird language like this is a compromise.

Edited May 30 by The Frankish Reich

[Tommy Callahan]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Jury out a while, that's a good sign for Trump

Who knows.  Maybe

 

but it probably means it's not as cut and dry as the pundits on both sides are trying to argue.

 

 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Jury out a while, that's a good sign for Trump

I would try not to read anything into it. Juries can be unpredictable.