Big Blitz Posted June 3 Posted June 3 6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I do have a kid and I’m totally fine living in a world where the laws are SELECTIVELY enforced. Fixed. Except immigration laws tho, right? Or your rights for that matter. The disingenuous sanctimonious b.s. from you people is off the chain. Enforcing the laws……. Magic. Biden, without Congress has determined they ALL met asylum criteria. 1 1
JaCrispy Posted June 3 Posted June 3 2 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: Fixed. Except immigration laws tho, right? Or your rights for that matter. The disingenuous sanctimonious b.s. from you people is off the chain. So let me get this straight…She’s a judge, whose job it is to interpret the Constitution…However, she has taken it upon herself to decide which parts of the Constitution she feels like following and which parts she doesn’t…Got it…👍 What was that, again, about the Left believing in the Constitution? SMH, unreal…
Big Blitz Posted June 3 Posted June 3 22 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: So let me get this straight…She’s a judge, whose job it is to interpret the Constitution…However, she has taken it upon herself to decide which parts of the Constitution she feels like following and which parts she doesn’t…Got it…👍 What was that, again, about the Left believing in the Constitution? SMH, unreal… They hate the constitution and this country. Everything they believe in is - whatever it takes to gain power at the expense of the people. 1
ChiGoose Posted June 3 Posted June 3 48 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: Fixed. Except immigration laws tho, right? Or your rights for that matter. The disingenuous sanctimonious b.s. from you people is off the chain. Enforcing the laws……. Magic. Biden, without Congress has determined they ALL met asylum criteria. Last time I checked, this judge you’re upset about was not the judge in Trump’s Manhattan case.
daz28 Posted June 3 Posted June 3 6 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Last time I checked, this judge you’re upset about was not the judge in Trump’s Manhattan case. The judge they won't be mad about is the trump appointed Hunter judge, unless of course he does something they don't like. Then he's dEeP sTaTe. 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted June 3 Posted June 3 On 6/1/2024 at 3:44 PM, ChiGoose said: 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. I am not sure if you are one of the ones who argued Colorado could remove him from the ballot but this one is almost that bad. If it has to get all the way to the supreme court, they will overturn in 7-2 based on judge not recusing himself, on improper application of law, and improper instructions from the judge. These are not minor things individually, much less in aggregate.
ChiGoose Posted June 3 Posted June 3 2 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I am not sure if you are one of the ones who argued Colorado could remove him from the ballot but this one is almost that bad. If it has to get all the way to the supreme court, they will overturn in 7-2 based on judge not recusing himself, on improper application of law, and improper instructions from the judge. These are not minor things individually, much less in aggregate. 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?
All_Pro_Bills Posted June 3 Posted June 3 (edited) 18 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: 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? I believe its incorrect that the law was applied elsewhere in the same way. As I understood previous applications the defendant was charged with a subsequent criminal violation where falsifying business records either facilitated or concealed a criminal act. In this case there was no underlying crime on any of the 34 counts. For example, falsifying business records to conceal money laundering, or avoiding taxes, or interfering with an election. In every one of those other cases the defendant was charged with a criminal violation in addition to falsifying business records. None of the 34 counts listed that offense in the indictment. And legally if you're not charged how can't be convicted? At least in a legitimate American court. In the other cases the defendant was charged and convicted of falsifying business records and another crime. Trump was not convicted of any other crime. Just a documentation violation. The judge more or less instructed the jury to pick one, any one of several potential subsequent crimes. It was left to the imagination of the jury to decide for each of them just what the underlying crime was here and whether or not the defendant was guilty of it. Just what each juror believed Trump was guilty of as a result of falsifying business record is unclear as there is no record of an indictment or verdict on what I can only call an imaginary indictment count. Maybe a juror or two believed falsifying business records facilitated the concealment of a murder or two? While I jest, based on the judges instructions that would have been acceptable. This conviction gets tossed, 100% certain. But the Democrats got what they wanted. A shady and abusive application of the legal system to tie up the other parties Presidential candidate. Interfering with the election. Edited June 3 by All_Pro_Bills
Doc Posted June 3 Posted June 3 38 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I believe its incorrect that the law was applied elsewhere in the same way. As I understood previous applications the defendant was charged with a subsequent criminal violation where falsifying business records either facilitated or concealed a criminal act. In this case there was no underlying crime on any of the 34 counts. For example, falsifying business records to conceal money laundering, or avoiding taxes, or interfering with an election. In every one of those other cases the defendant was charged with a criminal violation in addition to falsifying business records. None of the 34 counts listed that offense in the indictment. And legally if you're not charged how can't be convicted? At least in a legitimate American court. In the other cases the defendant was charged and convicted of falsifying business records and another crime. Trump was not convicted of any other crime. Just a documentation violation. The judge more or less instructed the jury to pick one, any one of several potential subsequent crimes. It was left to the imagination of the jury to decide for each of them just what the underlying crime was here and whether or not the defendant was guilty of it. Just what each juror believed Trump was guilty of as a result of falsifying business record is unclear as there is no record of an indictment or verdict on what I can only call an imaginary indictment count. Maybe a juror or two believed falsifying business records facilitated the concealment of a murder or two? While I jest, based on the judges instructions that would have been acceptable. This conviction gets tossed, 100% certain. But the Democrats got what they wanted. A shady and abusive application of the legal system to tie up the other parties Presidential candidate. Interfering with the election. Which (again) will end up backfiring as $200M was raised in the wake of it.
Orlando Buffalo Posted June 3 Posted June 3 5 hours ago, ChiGoose said: 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? The judge paid money to hurt Trump politically, despite it being against Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity of the US court code of conduct. Merchan can't claim impartiality in any way. This was a novel case tying two laws together very tenuously therefore invalidating it would not affect ANY other cases, you are literally the only person who believes that.
ChiGoose Posted June 3 Posted June 3 36 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: The judge paid money to hurt Trump politically, despite it being against Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity of the US court code of conduct. Merchan can't claim impartiality in any way. This was a novel case tying two laws together very tenuously therefore invalidating it would not affect ANY other cases, you are literally the only person who believes that. 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?
L Ron Burgundy Posted June 3 Posted June 3 27 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: More doxxing by Trump supporters And he went to jail for Trump....these people belong in asylum. Seriously.
Orlando Buffalo Posted June 3 Posted June 3 2 hours ago, ChiGoose said: 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? 175.10 has a statute of limitations of 2 years, but NY changed its laws after the statue of limitations had expired, in a novel situation, where only one man was charge under the old laws. But I want ask again why the judge giving money to Biden, against the code of conduct, is not a sign that he should have refused himself?
BillStime Posted June 3 Author Posted June 3 1 minute ago, Orlando Buffalo said: changed its laws Cry harder. Love, Women
ChiGoose Posted June 3 Posted June 3 16 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: 175.10 has a statute of limitations of 2 years, but NY changed its laws after the statue of limitations had expired, in a novel situation, where only one man was charge under the old laws. But I want ask again why the judge giving money to Biden, against the code of conduct, is not a sign that he should have refused himself? We're talking about $35, right? A donation that was investigated by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct which dismissed the complaint with a warning to Merchan? (Reuters) It was certainly inadvisable to do it, but remember that the New York's Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics also looked into this to determine if Merchan should recuse and they found that "Merchan's impartiality "cannot reasonably be questioned" based on his daughter's activities, or on the "modest" political contributions he made more than two years ago." (Reuters) So it looks like you have a judge who made a dumb decision to make a small political contribution several years ago. He was cautioned against doing so again an the committee that advises on ethics and recusal found there was no need for him to recuse from Trump's case. If they were all wrong, then maybe the case gets overturned and remanded to be tried by a different judge. But I certainly wouldn't bet on it.
reddogblitz Posted June 3 Posted June 3 1 hour ago, BillStime said: Clinton got impeached for a #### ###. Trump got convicted for a quickee.
Recommended Posts