That may be true, but not all else is equal...a lot of GOP voters are not using the same logic as you.
That may be true, but not all else is equal...a lot of GOP voters are not using the same logic as you.There is no galaxy brain needed here - voters prefer non-felons to felons, all else being equal.
Yea, liberal bias not found, but boring occurs.I like how NPR isn't even on the list. I guess it's still just for weirdie neck beards.
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.
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.
Incorrect - there is zero chance they intervene here to save his bacon as it would demolish whatever remains of the court's credibility and it wouldn't even accomplish anything. Trump is not going to jail before the election. If he wins then this case doesn't matter anyway and if he loses he has no power and wouldn't be worth saving.Trump "owns" the USSC. There's zero chance they won't intervene to keep King Donnie the Twice Impeached and 34 times convicted felon from seeing jail time...or from actually carrying the convictions.
I'm sure he will appeal, but those appeals will be heard by New York State courts. (he's also going to lose them, lol)Not a Lawyer, but from what I have read there is lots of room for an appeal.
They can't just "step in" and stop it, or in fact, do anything about it as of now. It would have to grind through the various gears of the justice system before it could come before them.Trump "owns" the USSC. There's zero chance they won't intervene to keep King Donnie the Twice Impeached and 34 times convicted felon from seeing jail time...or from actually carrying the convictions.
Not a Lawyer, but from what I have read there is lots of room for an appeal.
They have been known to overturn things recently.I'm sure he will appeal, but those appeals will be heard by New York State courts. (he's also going to lose them, lol)
They already have had the Immunity case. They just need to issue the ruling to 'step in'.They can't just "step in" and stop it, or in fact, do anything about it as of now. It would have to grind through the various gears of the justice system before it could come before them.
I think the most likely course is going to be rather or not he committed fraud in furtherance of a felony or a misdemeanor.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?
Your sources are?Not a Lawyer, but from what I have read there is lots of room for an appeal.
Again, SCOTUS stepping in wouldn't help Trump much and could even hurt him.They have been known to overturn things recently.
The immunity case has nothing to do with this as all the criminal conduct he was convicted for took place mostly before he was president. Even a truly bonkers ruling of total presidential immunity there wouldn't save him here, because he wasn't president when they paid Stormy off. That was the whole point!They already have had the Immunity case. They just need to issue the ruling to 'step in'.
You may need to hit up @gothuevos for where he gets his diapers from.They have been known to overturn things recently.
They already have had the Immunity case. They just need to issue the ruling to 'step in'.
I'm sure he will appeal, but those appeals will be heard by New York State courts. (he's also going to lose them, lol)
Not a Lawyer, but from what I have read there is lots of room for an appeal.
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.But on what grounds?
Again appeal on what basis?
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.
Think you've convinced me that although all that is bullshit, the lowest common denominator in the US legal system is money talks and there's enough money behind Trump to make sure any excuse is found so he doesn't go to jail!
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....
Probably not good to cite Honig when he’s making basic factual errors about the case.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.
Lets be honest.. you wanted OJ in jail.. I wanted OJ in jail but the justice system did a pretty good job telling these same legal experts they don't know jack shit.
And lawyers are actually worse than politicians. Lawyers care about 1 thing.. looking good on TV so they get more clients.