Democracy is in peril

[mspart]

The trial should never have happened.   I wrote a long dissertation on this and my browser crashed.   I will not re type it up. 

Suffice to say the indictment was not specific as to what Trump did.   The DOJ and FEC did not prosecute after investigating.   The state charged Trump with federal election law violation.   Judge was not randomly picked, nor was he eligible to preside as he contributed to Biden and Democratic causes.   Judge was also eligible because of conflict of interest with his daughter who works for the Ds as a fundraiser.  

The trial, as performed, was a joke.   Judge was obviously against the defense and for the prosecution. 

The prosecution in the closing statement disregarded rules the judge had laid down but the judge did not stop them.   The judges instructions to the jury essentially said they did not have all agree on what Trump did, they could find different things Trump did and as long as all of them thought he did something, that was a unanimous decision.   Since when is there such glaring vagueness in the indictment, charges, or jury instructions. 

The case should never have been brought.   The case should not have had the judge it did.   There should have been no trial held nor verdict read out.   This was a sham and a joke of a trial.   This did not do NY legal system any favors.  

Elie Honig and Jonathon Turley are agreed on the above as well as others. 

mspart

 

[WrestlingRasta]

11 minutes ago, mspart said:

The trial should never have happened.   I wrote a long dissertation on this and my browser crashed.   I will not re type it up. 

Suffice to say the indictment was not specific as to what Trump did.   The DOJ and FEC did not prosecute after investigating.   The state charged Trump with federal election law violation.   Judge was not randomly picked, nor was he eligible to preside as he contributed to Biden and Democratic causes.   Judge was also eligible because of conflict of interest with his daughter who works for the Ds as a fundraiser.  

The trial, as performed, was a joke.   Judge was obviously against the defense and for the prosecution. 

The prosecution in the closing statement disregarded rules the judge had laid down but the judge did not stop them.   The judges instructions to the jury essentially said they did not have all agree on what Trump did, they could find different things Trump did and as long as all of them thought he did something, that was a unanimous decision.   Since when is there such glaring vagueness in the indictment, charges, or jury instructions. 

The case should never have been brought.   The case should not have had the judge it did.   There should have been no trial held nor verdict read out.   This was a sham and a joke of a trial.   This did not do NY legal system any favors.  

Elie Honig and Jonathon Turley are agreed on the above as well as others. 

mspart

 

What about all those, with strong professions and reputations in law, who disagree with the above, however?  Honest question.  Are they just simply politically motivated?

[mspart]

19 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

What about all those, with strong professions and reputations in law, who disagree with the above, however?  Honest question.  Are they just simply politically motivated?

I can't answer that, they would have to.   But I think any honest lawyer would look at the indictment and say this isn't a case.   Any outside honest observer would have to say Merchan should not have been the judge.  He presided over 3 other Trump affiliated type cases.   No way was he randomly picked a 4th time.   Any outside honest observer would say Merchan had too many conflict of interests (donations and daughter) to move forward with this trial.  

All of these show the trial should never have happened (the indictment shows this) the rest shows the judge should not have been there trying to run the farce. 

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

7 minutes ago, mspart said:

I can't answer that, they would have to. But I’m asking you, in your opinion, if an honest member of the law profession disagrees with you and Turley, is it simply they are politically motivated? (I assume with your ‘any honest…’ your answer is yes, but I don’t want to close on assuming.   But I think any honest lawyer would look at the indictment and say this isn't a case.   Any outside honest observer I think the problem with that is, any outside observer is simply getting the opinions of someone else. It’s not really observing the case, an outside observer would have no way to. It’s observing the opinions of others, and in many of those situations, observing the opinions of other outside observers….with agendas….(both ways).

mspart

 

Edited June 5 by WrestlingRasta

[mspart]

I gave the eggregious issues that should have not let the judge on the case and not allowed to case to move forward.  

Since the NY Bar says no judge can give political contributions, Merchan was in flagrant violation.  Since the NY Bar states that a judge with real or construed conflicts of interest are barred from the case.   Merchan by his D donations and daughter with D fundraising job is the definition of a conflict of interest.  

The indictment was not specific as to the crime, the means of the crime, nor the documents that prove the crime.   It was an empty dissertation of why Trump should be convicted but not the specific allegations of why. 

You can't just prosecute someone because you don't like him and he probably did something bad.   You have to allege exactly what he/she did and then prove it.   There was no such allegation so therefore no case.   It should not have been tried.  

mspart

[mspart]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-legal-guru-says-new-york-trump-prosecutors-contorted-law-case-unjustified-mess

CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig criticized the New York criminal case against Donald Trump as an "unjustified mess" in a scathing analysis piece, saying prosecutors "contorted the law" to ensnare the former president.

... "Plenty of prosecutors have won plenty of convictions in cases that shouldn’t have been brought in the first place," he continued. "'But they won' is no defense to a strained, convoluted reach unless the goal is to 'win,' now, by any means necessary and worry about the credibility of the case and the fallout later."

Honig then laid out "undeniable facts" about NY v. Trump. 

"The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for ‘resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy,’" Honig wrote. "Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to ‘Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!’? Absolutely not."

The CNN legal guru then noted that Bragg ran for office by "touting his Trump-hunting prowess" in the deeply blue county. Honig, who noted Bragg and Trump attorney Todd Blanche are both his friends and former colleagues, also said Bragg regularly made false claims about Trump on the campaign trail. 

"Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. That’s not on the jury. That’s on the prosecutors who chose to bring the case and the judge who let it play out as it did," Honig wrote. 

Honig declared the charges against Trump are "obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented."

"In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever," Honig wrote. 

https://cafe.com/elies-note/trump-manhattan-da-trial-bragg/

An essay written by Elie Honig:

First: paying hush money is not a crime. In fact, a hush money agreement, though seedy, is legally no different than any other contract between private parties. So the fact that Trump knew about the Daniels payoff – and he clearly did – is merely a starting point here, and insufficient to prove anything criminal. 

The charged New York state crime here is falsification of business records. The DA alleges that Trump had the hush money payments fraudulently recorded in his internal books as “Legal Expenses” (rather than, I don’t know, “Hush Money to Porn Star”). If proven, that’s merely a misdemeanor – a low-level crime virtually certain to result in a non-prison sentence. For comparison, under the New York code, falsification of business records has the same technical designation as shoplifting less than $1,000 of goods.

The proof on the falsification point is mixed. On one hand, Trump plainly knew about the payments, and he signed some of the checks to reimburse his former attorney (turned-star-prosecution-witness) Michael Cohen for the payoffs. But it’s not entirely clear whether Trump was involved in the actual logging of those payments in the internal records of his business – and, remember, that’s the crime. In fact, when Cohen secretly recorded his then-client talking about a hush money payment to another woman in 2016, Trump seems clueless about the accounting mechanism; Cohen explains to Trump that “I’ve spoken with [Trump Organization CFO] Allen Wiesellberg about how to set the whole thing up.” Later, when Trump asks if they’ll pay cash, Cohen responds, “No, no, no, no, no. I got it.” So Trump’s team will argue that the lawyer (Cohen) and accountant (Weisellberg) – not Trump – handled the booking of the payments. Cohen surely will testify that Trump was in on not just the payments, but also the internal bookkeeping around them.

mspart

 

 

[mspart]

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/04/24/alvin-bragg-has-his-trump-trial-all-he-needs-now-is-a-crime/

For many of us in the legal community, the case of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg against former president Donald Trump borders on the legally obscene: an openly political prosecution based on a theory that even some liberal pundits have dismissed. Yet, this week the prosecution seemed like they were actually making a case for obscenity.

No, it was not the gratuitous introduction of an uncharged alleged tryst with a former Playboy bunny or planned details on the relationship with a former porn star. It was the criminal theory itself that seemed crafted around the standard for obscenity famously described by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964): “I shall not today attempt further to define [it] … But I know it when I see it.”

After months of confusion of what crime they were alleging in the indictment, the prosecution offered a new theory that is so ambiguous and undefined that it would have made Justice Stewart blush.

New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that one of the crimes that Trump allegedly committed in listing the payments to Stormy Daniels as a “legal expense” was New York Law 17-152. This law states “Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

So they are arguing that Trump committed a crime by conspiring to unlawfully promote his own candidacy. He did this by paying to quash a potentially embarrassing story and then reimbursing his lawyer  with other legal expenses.

Confused? You are not alone.

It is not a crime to pay money for the nondisclosure of an alleged affair. Moreover, it is also not a federal election offense (which is the other crime alleged by Bragg) to pay such money as a personal or legal expense. It is not treated under federal law as a political contribution to yourself.

Yet, somehow the characterization of this payment as a legal expense is being treated as an illegal conspiracy to promote one’s own candidacy in New York.

... As with James, Bragg saw it in Trump. His predecessor did not see it. He declined charging on this basis. Bragg did to.  He stopped the investigation. However, after a pressure campaign, Bragg might not be able to see the crime but he certainly saw the political consequences of not charging Trump.

It is not clear if Trump even knew how this money was characterized on ledgers or records. He paid the money to his lawyer, who had put together this settlement over the nondisclosure agreement. Cohen will soon go on the stand and tell the jury that they should send his former client to jail for following his legal advice.

t is not even clear how this matter was supposed to be noted in records. What if the Trump employee put “legal settlement in personal matter” or “nuisance payment”? Would those words be the difference

Again, it is not clear. But that does not appear to matter in New York. The crime may not be clear or even comprehensible. However, the identity of the defendant could not be more clear and the prosecutors are hoping that the jury, like themselves, will look no further.

mspart

 

[WrestlingRasta]

That’s all great, basically just repeating, but still doesn’t answer or address anything I asked.   I don’t disagree at all that there are people, major players in the law profession, who are saying this is a sham. What I’m saying is there are also people, major players in the law profession, saying just the opposite.  
 

So my main question/point is being that, and I think we can both agree on these:

A) you and I are in no way experts in law

B) you and I have not intricate details what so ever in the case, because we weren’t involved in the investigations, we didn’t sit on the grand jury that indicted, and we weren’t in the courtroom or reading transcripts thereof 

C) you and I both know that at least 90% of the media we watch/read is agenda driven. 
 

How can any of us take such a hard stance on this, over the people who were in fact intricately involved, most notably members of the grand and trial juries? 
 

Is it the reporting and who you believe is and is not bias? 

[Scouts Honor]

1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

What about all those, with strong professions and reputations in law, who disagree with the above, however?  Honest question.  Are they just simply politically motivated?

all one has to do is look at the prosecutor and the judge to decide if they are politically motivated 

[WrestlingRasta]

2 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

all one has to do is look at the prosecutor and the judge to decide if they are politically motivated 

We haven't heard that from Fox or Newsmax or anything like that at all.

What about a collective of opinions from law people inside the courtroom?  Where do those opinions fall in the category of holding weight?

[Scouts Honor]

the DA ran his campaign on the Idea of going after trump

[WrestlingRasta]

2 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

the DA ran his campaign on the Idea of going after trump

More talking points that speak nothing to the undebatable facts of a grand jury hearing evidence and indicting, and members of a trial jury convicting, unanimously, 34-0, rather quickly……….in an environment where no media pundits were heard. 
 

[WrestlingRasta]

Pretty interesting article here that addresses a number of the things mentioned in this thread.

Debunking 12 Myths About Trump's Conviction (msn.com)

 

[Scouts Honor]

talking points?
it's fact.

[WrestlingRasta]

4 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

talking points?
it's fact.

It’s both. It’s a ‘talking point’ because it has absolutely nothing to do with the facts and evidence that were presented to grand and trial juries.  It’s talking points to rub people’s emotions.  
 

Guliani ran on a platform of going after and getting specific criminals. Does his success in that effort make it any more or less….matters of law? 

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Pretty interesting article here that addresses a number of the things mentioned in this thread.

Debunking 12 Myths About Trump's Conviction (msn.com)

 

I’m going to take your word that you don’t know a lot about the trial.  Understand that the grand jury and the trial jury were in the same boat.  Both proceedings depend on the prosecutor and judge to impartially present the jurors with the information they need to make a judgment.  The ‘debunk’ you linked fails on the first point.  It debunks nothing, but instead depends on the reader to read the 13 pages that were required for the prosecutor to complete the circle.  Similar to the true meaning of begging the question.  It is not a matter of “charging in the alternative” as Vak claimed.  Smith has a history of overturned verdicts and overcharging cases.  Those also had grand juries and trial judges.  So if you didn’t know what a show trial was before, now you have an example. 

[Scouts Honor]

it's crazy, but we really are in trouble

trump has already been convicted.

Yet no one on epsteins list has been

[WrestlingRasta]

40 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

I’m going to take your word that you don’t know a lot about the trial.  Understand that the grand jury and the trial jury were in the same boat.  Both proceedings depend on the prosecutor and judge to impartially present the jurors with the information they need to make a judgment.  The ‘debunk’ you linked fails on the first point.  It debunks nothing, but instead depends on the reader to read the 13 pages that were required for the prosecutor to complete the circle.  Similar to the true meaning of begging the question.  It is not a matter of “charging in the alternative” as Vak claimed.  Smith has a history of overturned verdicts and overcharging cases.  Those also had grand juries and trial judges.  So if you didn’t know what a show trial was before, now you have an example. 

What I know about the trial has nothing to do with media hot takes or what pundits want to make you think. 

You’ve been very transparent in your time here, on how you fall in line there. And this never works out well for you. 

[braves121]

10 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

it's crazy, but we really are in trouble

trump has already been convicted.

Yet no one on epsteins list has been

Well I mean now one of Epstein associates/ co-defendants on a rape law suit has now been convicted 

Edited June 6 by braves121

[Offthemat]

10 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

What I know about the trial has nothing to do with media hot takes or what pundits want to make you think. 

You’ve been very transparent in your time here, on how you fall in line there. And this never works out well for you. 

While it absolutely does if you’re trying to decide which one to consider to be correct.  Another consideration might be to notice which ones have been consistently wrong, telling you Trump colluded with Russians, Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation, and Colorado could ban Trump from the ballot because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is self executing.  There’s at least one of those named in your ‘debunked’ link.  
I believe most of us here get our news from multiple sources that we’ve found reliable over time.  We also hear the opposing views from various sources.  We have our own varied opinions of right and wrong, but they’re similar for the most part.  Of course, there’s a few that read like they’re fresh from the teacher’s union convention.

 As for transparency, I’m not trying to conceal anything, and I rarely post anything I can’t support.  As for ending well, I’m pretty much out of conspiracy theories - they’ve all been proven true. 

[WrestlingRasta]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

I believe most of us here get our news from multiple sources that we’ve found reliable over time.  

I don't doubt this in the slightest, its what we find the sources reliable to that I question.......reliable to accurate information, or reliable to our predetermined biases.  

[uncle bernard]

14 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

it's crazy, but we really are in trouble

trump has already been convicted.

Yet no one on epsteins list has been

my guy....

[mspart]

17 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

That’s all great, basically just repeating, but still doesn’t answer or address anything I asked.   I don’t disagree at all that there are people, major players in the law profession, who are saying this is a sham. What I’m saying is there are also people, major players in the law profession, saying just the opposite.  
 

So my main question/point is being that, and I think we can both agree on these:

A) you and I are in no way experts in law

B) you and I have not intricate details what so ever in the case, because we weren’t involved in the investigations, we didn’t sit on the grand jury that indicted, and we weren’t in the courtroom or reading transcripts thereof 

C) you and I both know that at least 90% of the media we watch/read is agenda driven. 
 

How can any of us take such a hard stance on this, over the people who were in fact intricately involved, most notably members of the grand and trial juries? 
 

Is it the reporting and who you believe is and is not bias? 

I agree with a).   I agree with b) except I think we do know details about the trial.   Intricate details no.  I do agree we didn't sit on the grand or other jury and were not in the courtroom.  But I think enough details have come out that show that this was a sham from the beginning as I have said and provided evidence of.  I agree with C. 

I can take a hard stance because of the willingness of Bragg to take this case after he and his predecessor said they wouldn't because it was a joke.   But because he ran on getting Trump, he was beholden to his supporters and had to do it because of the pressure he was getting.  It was not that it was the right thing to do, but the convenient thing to do.   As noted, DOJ and FEC both investigated and found nothing there to prosecute.   That is without doubt.  

Also without doubt is that Merchan should not have been assigned to this case due to his conflict of interest and apparent lack of random assignment when he was the judge in 3 previous  cases regarding Trump associates.  

Also without doubt is the structure of the indictment being circular and not specific.   The indictment in part reads as follows:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwib6fKvsseGAxUCHjQIHUK4CbkQFnoECCsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2IyXX-b_83qjuFwwmZld8S

THIRTY-FIRST COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:

The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about November 21, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated November 21, 2017, bearing check number 002980, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

In the underlined, the red is a misdemeanor that ran out of the statute of limitations 6 years earlier.   The blue, is as specific as it gets to link to some other crime that was needed to make this situation felonious.  What other crime?   The indictment does not identify the "another crime".   What charge have you ever seen or contemplated as being proper says the defendant did this specific thing in furtherance of some other unspecific thing?   This is how the 32 counts against Trump read.   There is nothing specific about "another crime".   And the reporting from the case did not show any evidence of any specific "another crime" that Trump may have done.   I'm not buying it.   And the jury did not have to agree on what specifically Trump did, they only had to find that he probably did something, although unspecific, because the indictment was not specific.   Those things do not a criminal trial make in my mind.  That's just me.  

If trying someone with an indictment that reads, "this man/woman robbed Hay's Sporting Goods taking $1347.00 out of the cashier's tills and later with intent to rob other stores stole a car. "    The first is a solid indictment, but the addition of the second ruins it.   The third statement on its own is sufficient but you cannot tie stealing a car with intent to rob other stores.   There was nothing solid in the indictment that Trump did and therefore, the case should never have moved forward.   I'm no lawyer, but I cannot believe the judicial system would allow such a thing to happen.   But it did and it is not a good look for NY. 

mspart

 

[Scouts Honor]

4 hours ago, braves121 said:

Well I mean now one of Epstein associates/ co-defendants on a rape law suit has now been convicted 

was trump on the list? 

[braves121]

12 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

was trump on the list? 

Yes. Trump is also a co defendant on a child rape case with Epstein.