From what I've read that's the biggest risk, but that doesn't mean it's likely.
From what I've read that's the biggest risk, but that doesn't mean it's likely.I think the most likely course is going to be rather or not he committed fraud in furtherance of a felony or a misdemeanor.
Calvinball.But on what grounds?
He picked the jury.
He picked his lawyer.
He chose not to testify.
The judge never jailed him for his violations.. so can't exactly say the judge was against him.
Again appeal on what basis?
He's not counting on the state appeal...he's counting on his USSC to do what he hired them to do.What little I’ve read from non-tv lawyers has indicated Trump’s NY appeal is very unlikely to succeed.
So at what point will you admit being wrong on this?He's not counting on the state appeal...he's counting on his USSC to do what he hired them to do.
A group of Republican Senators announced they plan to stop working with Democrats in Washington D.C…
Looks like there are a few countries he cannot goto
Can You Travel Abroad With a Felony Conviction
If you have been convicted of a crime, you should expect that you will have serious problems traveling abroad.evisa.express
And fiscal advoidance is pretty serious
It’s a state matter, on what grounds do you think there is Federal jurisdiction?He's not counting on the state appeal...he's counting on his USSC to do what he hired them to do.
If true as reported what's fundamentally disturbing is the apparent rapport between Mike Fucking Johnson and Alito & company. If we didn't before, we know now what we're up against.While it’s super corrupt and indicative that republicans view SCOTUS as a partisan institution it’s also not going to happen in a million years. This is just pathetic messaging/wishcasting.
Well...I guess when it happens...and I really hope I'm wrong on this. We'll just have to wait and see.So at what point will you admit being wrong on this?
That’s the point. Since the orange monkey said it, he’s base will eat it up. And once SCOTUS can’t intervene, he’ll come up with new excuse of Biden interference.It’s a state matter, on what grounds do you think there is Federal jurisdiction?
They CAN intervene, but the normal process is for Trump to appeal th the NY State Court of Appeals then, if he loses, to the NY Supreme Court...and, finally, if he loses that, to the USSC.That’s the point. Since the orange monkey said it, he’s base will eat it up. And once SCOTUS can’t intervene, he’ll come up with new excuse of Biden interference.
Hopefully they keep screaming it. In general people like the idea of bipartisanship, but general they forget about these party of no statements by the time the election comes around.GOP Senators Announce Plan To Take Ball, Go Home ...
'Mockery of the rule of law': GOP senators vow to stonewall Dems after Trump conviction
A group of Republican Senators announced they plan to stop working with Democrats in Washington D.C. after 12 jurors convicted former President Donald Trump on criminal charges in New York City. Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and J.D. Vance (R-OH) lead a list of eight senators who are now promising to...www.rawstory.com
Oh no!, you mean the effective bipartisanship we’ve been enjoying is at an end? .... lol!
Translation: “We’re going to go on doing the exact same thing we’ve been doing back to the Obama years. We’re just going to yell about it a little bit louder in the hopes of changing the public narrative.
How can we tell?
I'd think a diplomatic passport would get around most of the restrictions but really don't know.Most likely. if he were to become president again, his status as a felon would not keep him out. His status as a crazy person that rational people want nothing to do with, is another matter.
Though some countries might require that he apply for a special exemption. But as of right now I’m pretty sure that he could not fly into any of those countries as he does now have a criminal record. He could not, for example, without being granted an exemption, visit his golf course in Scotland.
Well, I'm not trying to convince you.
You have your opinion and I have mine. You asked what I was basing it on so I told you. IMO these legal experts carry more weight than Internet wanna be lawyers. Please note that are not all MAGA Right Wing GOPers....
I'll be the first to state I do not have a clue how the courts will rule.
I have read and listened to many sources of legal opinions on this case from Johnathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz, and others how it was handled improperly.
CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig has criticized the New York criminal case against Trump as an "unjustified mess" and argued prosecutors "contorted the law" to get the former president.
Honig also explained another appellate issue, arguing that it was unprecedented to have Bragg, a county prosecutor, enforcing federal law.
CNN legal analyst Elie Honig has previously said that this case was legally dubious, uniquely targeted Trump and could not succeed outside of an anti-Trump district.
CNN legal correspondent Paula Reid said Sunday that while any appeals process was unlikely to play out before the election, "there are some legitimate questions to be appealed here."
Erin Burnett, a CNN host, asked former prosecutor Mark O'Mara during her show on Thursday about Trump's odds on appeal. "I actually think they’re pretty good because there are a number of significant issues [with] the way this trial was handled," O'Mara said.
"There is an appeal that could have legs," Arlo Devlin-Brown, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan, told Politico. "The combination of the prosecution offering three different theories as to how the false records could have violated state election law, limited instruction on what some of those theories required, and the fact that jurors were not required to agree on which had been proven creates a real issue for the appeal," Devlin-Brown said.
Judge:
Acting Supreme Court justice Juan Merchan was handpicked for this case rather than randomly selected. This is only the latest in a litany of Trump cases where Merchan has meted out tough rulings against Trump and his organization.
We learned later that Merchan has contributed to a group to stop the GOP and Trump. Merchan’s daughter is also a Democratic organizer who has helped raise millions against Trump and the GOP and for the Democrats.
What is equally disturbing is the failure of Merchan to protect the rights of the defendant and what even critics admit were distinctly pro-prosecution rulings in the trial. It is not just the appearance of a conflict with Judge Merchan but a record of highly biased decisions.
The Charges:
The Federal Election Commission likewise found no basis for a civil fine. With no federal prosecution, Bragg decided to use an unprecedented criminal theory not only to zap a dead misdemeanor into life (after the expiration of the statute of limitation) but to allow him to try violations of not only federal election law but also federal taxation violations. In other words, the Justice Department would not prosecute federal violations, so Bragg effectively did it in state court.
The indictment claimed a violation under New York’s election law 17-152 that the falsification of business records were committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election. However, in a maddeningly circular theory, that other crime could be the falsification of business records. It could also be violations of federal election and taxation laws, which Trump was never charged with, let alone convicted of.
Immaterial and prejudicial Evidence:
Judge Merchan allowed a torrent of immaterial and prejudicial evidence to be introduced into the trial by the prosecution. That included testimony from porn actress Stormy Daniels that went into details about having sex with Trump. She included a clear suggestion that Trump raped her.
** Isn't this what the Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction was overturned for?
Here's why Harvey Weinstein's New York rape conviction was tossed and what happens next
Here’s what you need to know about why Weinstein’s rape conviction was thrown out and what happens next.apnews.com
Merchan also barred the use of a legal expert, former FEC Chair Brad Smith, who was prepared to testify that such payments cannot be viewed as federal election violations and would not affect the election even if they were considered contributions, since they would not even have had to be reported until after the election.
Multiple choice for the undisclosed secondary crime that didn't have to be Unanimous. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the requirement of unanimity in criminal convictions is sacrosanct in our system. While there was unanimity that the business records were falsified to hide or further a second crime, there was no express finding of what that crime may have been. We still don't know specifically what that was.
Maybe everybody else is wrong and you guys are right... I guess we will see in time.
I've heard contrary commentary. Though I agree that the nature of this case seems so convoluted and technical that it doesn't feel like a 'slam dunk' conviction. Even if it's upheld, it seems hard for a layperson to get a grip on exactly what crime was committed, and so to see Trump definitively as a criminal.
That is the advantage of crimming at Trump's level, though. He doesn't have to bash someone over the head and take their wallet. It's related to the way some financial fraud cases have become so complicated that they've collapsed because the jury couldn't understand the evidence.
I find it highly unlikely that the state prosecuted without solid evidence.