ChiGoose Posted June 2 Posted June 2 11 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: Well the crooked judge wouldn't allow the FEC expert witness to testify in court that what Trump did was in no way a violation of election rules, regulations, or law and that that was the position of the commission when they declined to take up the issue. Heaven forbid the jury heard that. 100% certain te conviction is overturned. 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). 1
JaCrispy Posted June 2 Posted June 2 3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: 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). Much respect for this rational, non partisan post…We need more of this on here…👍 1
Tenhigh Posted June 3 Posted June 3 20 hours ago, Tenhigh said: I'm kind of interested how our legal scholars explain one. And the guy that says it was purely just incompetence on their part can save the bandwidth by not typing that stupidity. @The Frankish Reich Can you chime in on this? 22 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: 2
Tenhigh Posted June 3 Posted June 3 18 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: you're an outlier for your alma mater, party and social scene. trump owns country clubs, graduated ivy league and wouldn't allow the vast majority of his supporters near the gates. I remember when Rockefeller R's were dominant, especially in NY. Now most are D's. or at the very least consided RINO's. It's a crying shame and the country is worse for it. You'd be surprised by the number of our fellow grads that align more with me than you politically. But how in the world do you know my "social scene"? Most of my friends are small businesses owners, retired cops/fireman or work in finance. Trust me, I am anything but an outlier in that group, if anything I am consided a dirty hippy. 1
SectionC3 Posted June 3 Posted June 3 11 hours ago, JaCrispy said: Much respect for this rational, non partisan post…We need more of this on here…👍 I’ll give it you you straight. The FEC expert contention is garbage. Anyone pushing that doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Experts don’t opine on conclusions of law. Now, precluding testimony that the FEC determined not to charge Trump is a different ball of wax. That’s a discretionary call. I think it should have come in. Others may disagree. And, even if the first department agrees with me, the question will be whether the error is harmless under a nonconstituonal standard. I doubt that it is, although I didn’t sit through the trial. Venue contentions also are trash for reasons that distill to each juror either did or should have unequivocally assured impartiality. If that didn’t happen (highly unlikely) then it’s on defense counsel to object/challenge. Absence of objection there potentially is ineffective assistance of counsel but only through a 440 motion. But I’d doubt that would be raised because it seems like trump is going to do the unorthodox thing of having Blanche handle the post-trial litigation (who likely won’t contend that he was ineffective). sufficieny and weight contentions don’t have legs. Having read the final jury instructions and assuming the media reports of the *****, cohen, and hicks testimony are accurate, it’s a slam dunk on the facts. (This case is incredibly complicated on the law, but once one understands that piece, it’s pretty easy on the facts.) statute of limitations challenge similarly is junk. That contention involves only the felonies, for which the statute had not run. so there’s your nonpartisan analysis. All of these whiners about rigged trial and whatnot are clueless. Want to say that he shouldn’t have been prosecuted? I’ll listen. Maybe there’s an appellate argument laying around somewhere about unequal enforcement of this law. But the jury appears (see above re media reports) to have done the right thing on this all day long. 4 2 2
SectionC3 Posted June 3 Posted June 3 18 hours ago, ChiGoose said: 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. That might be the explanation . There’s a difference between mischaracterizing a campaign expense and not declaring a campaign expense. I don’t know anything about the Hillary issue, though, so not fair for me to say. And, in any event, it doesn’t change that what trump did is a crime.
ChiGoose Posted June 3 Posted June 3 42 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: That might be the explanation . There’s a difference between mischaracterizing a campaign expense and not declaring a campaign expense. I don’t know anything about the Hillary issue, though, so not fair for me to say. And, in any event, it doesn’t change that what trump did is a crime. 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.
The Frankish Reich Posted June 3 Posted June 3 1 hour ago, SectionC3 said: Now, precluding testimony that the FEC determined not to charge Trump is a different ball of wax. That’s a discretionary call. I think it should have come in. Others may disagree. And, even if the first department agrees with me, the question will be whether the error is harmless under a nonconstituonal standard. Good point, and that sounds like a decent issue on appeal.
The Frankish Reich Posted June 3 Posted June 3 2 hours ago, Tenhigh said: @The Frankish Reich Can you chime in on this? Since you asked: 1. The schemes (and I use that word on purpose) were not equivalent. One (Clinton) involved a circuitous funding of what would be called "oppo research." The other involved what is quite accurately called hush money. 2. Clinton's campaign and lawyers were smarter. This one is not debatable. The Clinton campaign engaged Perkins Coie, a major firm with really smart lawyers experienced in this area of law. Perkins Coie then engaged the services of that Fusion GPS joint, which in turn engaged the services of dossier creator Christopher Steele. Trump's campaign used Michael Cohen, a terrible lawyer who went to what is usually considered the worst accredited law school in America, who of course was a "fixer" more than a lawyer and who really didn't know what the hell he was doing when it comes to campaign laws. He did a ham-handed coverup and got caught. This is no doubt because Trump's issue was one involving covering up his own misdeeds; Clinton's campaign was more interested in pinning other alleged misdeeds on her opponent. In the end, that matters, and what would cynically be called plausible deniability matters. In other words, "I have the best people" vs. "I have a clown" matters. So there's my quick explanations. One objective, and one admittedly cynical.
SectionC3 Posted June 3 Posted June 3 40 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Good point, and that sounds like a decent issue on appeal. The best of what likely is a bad lot. But not one that would give me a ton of hope.
B-Man Posted June 3 Posted June 3 Even the blind can see this. Ex-Democrat NY Gov. Paterson blasts ‘rigged’ prosecution of Donald Trump By Carl Campanile Democratic ex-New York Gov. David Paterson says he would have wanted President Biden to consider pardoning Donald Trump in his hush-money conviction if the prez had the power. Paterson, speaking Sunday on 77 WABC radio’s “The Cats Roundtable,” agreed with Trump’s gripes that the case was “rigged. “There are a lot … of erroneous qualities to that trial,” Paterson said. “Some of the people who are involved: A person who worked at the White House somehow wound up in the Manhattan DA’s Office. “All of it, when it adds up, really looks very much like what the former president describes it as,” the top Dem told host John Catsimatidis. https://nypost.com/2024/06/02/us-news/ex-dem-ny-gov-paterson-blasts-rigged-prosecution-of-donald-trump-as-pataki-worries-of-election-impact/ . 1
Tenhigh Posted June 3 Posted June 3 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: Since you asked: 1. The schemes (and I use that word on purpose) were not equivalent. One (Clinton) involved a circuitous funding of what would be called "oppo research." The other involved what is quite accurately called hush money. 2. Clinton's campaign and lawyers were smarter. This one is not debatable. The Clinton campaign engaged Perkins Coie, a major firm with really smart lawyers experienced in this area of law. Perkins Coie then engaged the services of that Fusion GPS joint, which in turn engaged the services of dossier creator Christopher Steele. Trump's campaign used Michael Cohen, a terrible lawyer who went to what is usually considered the worst accredited law school in America, who of course was a "fixer" more than a lawyer and who really didn't know what the hell he was doing when it comes to campaign laws. He did a ham-handed coverup and got caught. This is no doubt because Trump's issue was one involving covering up his own misdeeds; Clinton's campaign was more interested in pinning other alleged misdeeds on her opponent. In the end, that matters, and what would cynically be called plausible deniability matters. In other words, "I have the best people" vs. "I have a clown" matters. So there's my quick explanations. One objective, and one admittedly cynical. Thanks for taking the time. 1
Governor Posted June 4 Posted June 4 On 5/30/2024 at 8:59 PM, buffblue said: Lmao are you kidding me. I think Trump is a disgrace but you're nuttier than Magats if you think Biden is winning by 8 points lol There isn’t any reason to think an election between an incumbent president vs. a convicted felon that already lost pretty badly to that incumbent will be close at all. All signs point to high voter turnout once again.
phypon Posted June 4 Posted June 4 10 minutes ago, Governor said: There isn’t any reason to think an election between an incumbent president vs. a convicted felon that already lost pretty badly to that incumbent will be close at all. All signs point to high voter turnout once again. You should vote twice. Everybody else did!
Governor Posted June 4 Posted June 4 4 minutes ago, phypon said: You should vote twice. Everybody else did! He’s an extremely unpopular 1 term president that people walk over glass to vote against, who’s now a serial felon. This one isn’t hard guys. 1 1
phypon Posted June 4 Posted June 4 1 minute ago, Governor said: He’s an extremely unpopular 1 term president that people walk over glass to vote against, who’s now a serial felon. This one isn’t hard guys. You forgot "nazi" and "racist". Pretty sure that's what CNN is telling you to say. Keep trying!
ChiGoose Posted June 4 Posted June 4 22 minutes ago, phypon said: You should vote twice. Everybody else did! Mostly Republicans though 1 1
phypon Posted June 4 Posted June 4 1 minute ago, ChiGoose said: Mostly Republicans though Nope. Wrong.
L Ron Burgundy Posted June 5 Posted June 5 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Mostly Republicans though Fact. 1
Recommended Posts