5/30 ruling against Trump

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-31-2024, 05:46 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: By the way, the factset is almost indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton.  A lawfirm paid, $3M I think in total, for the oppo research we all know as "The Dossier".  It was billed as legal fees to the Clinton campaign.  As with Trump, the FEC declined to pursue charges.  Instead, they fined Hillary and the DNC like $100k.  And while we're on the subject, the social media and "30 former intelligence officials" attempting to quash and spin Hunter's laptop was clearly an illegal campaign contribution, notwithstanding this Trump case.

So I'll wait with baited breath for the upcoming charges against Clinton.  Guess he should have hired her lawyers instead of Cohen - "only the best people!" LOL.

My other issue is the NDA is not illegal, and if Trump had simply paid out of his own pocket I don't think there is a chargeable crime, even for a NY prosecutor.  But the whole point of an NDA is secrecy and anonymity, and it can be difficult to pursue recourse assuming you can even definitively prove the source of a leak.  Which is why they use pseudonyms.

Also, not making a legal argument just a practical observation....These business records are PRIVATE.  IRS audits are PRIVATE.  So we really are talking about, yet again, a PROCESS crime.  So I struggle to understand where the intent, irrespective of whether Trump had knowledge of it, was to commit a "felony" when a legal NDA is never public regardless of the bookkeeping.  Maybe I missed an explanation somewhere, but I don't see how the falsification of business records is election interference by concealing records that were never public to begin with.

You're highlighting (although I'm disappointed that's even necessary) the real issue here.  This whole trial seems like a made out of whole cloth by design way to nail Trump.  If Trump were the first politician to engage in this type of behavior this probably wouldn't be an issue.  But when you look at the avalanche of things past POTUS' have done, many light years more egregious and serious, and yet none of them have ever even sniffed an indictment, it lends tremendous credence to the idea that Trump is being uniquely targeted.

We're all aware that for the anti-Trump crowd this isn't a bug, it's a feature.  They're over the moon because they finally got their pound of flesh, for now.  For those paying attention the long term damage to our national fabric is readily apparent.  These odd features of the Bragg case delineated in my link are further proof, and rather compelling proof at that, that this system is rigged for those in power.  That those who dare challenge that are going to be punished in unique and inventive ways.  This is not a recipe for national cohesion and is, in fact, the exact opposite.  

Most of us here were aghast at 01/06, and rightfully so.  But why would you think it would just automatically stop there?  Why would you think that further evidence of attempts to uniquely target Trump wouldn't bring in more people?  For all of its horrors 01/06 was more peaceful than many BLM protests in 2020.  What happens when more people decide they've seen enough, that they're convinced?  That this time it won't be "largely peaceful"?  If you're concerned about that, and we all should be, then it would be the height of stupidity to outright ignore or dismiss the very real concerns many have with this case and its unique features.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-31-2024, 05:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You either didn't read the article or you didn't understand what you read.  

Maybe you didn’t understand what I wrote? Tell me where I’m going wrong.

Did he falsify business records? Yes

Did he falsify business records in order to help get himself elected? Yes he was in the middle of a presidential campaign and committed fraud to bury an embarrassing story.

Does New York have a law about that? Yes
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152
Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. 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.

Does New York have a law that bumps falsifying business records up to a felony when it is part of another crime? Yes
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10
Falsifying business records in the first degree.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-31-2024, 08:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I guess my question for those that think this will get overturned on appeal is what, specifically, do you think allows for this verdict to be vacated? What part or parts of the trial process opened the door for this possibility?

I would guess the Stormy Daniels testimony, potentially the odd jury instructions (55 pages and the jurors cannot have a copy, but must  sit through a reading)., there were a lot of odd moving parts.

Changing the law so DJT could be prosecuted, up-charging a misdemeanor to a felony, from a DA who often does the reverse, campaigning on going after DJT, just to name a few.

Not saying those are grounds for anything, but it doesn't smell good and sometimes where there's smoke, there is fire.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-31-2024, 06:17 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Maybe you didn’t understand what I wrote? Tell me where I’m going wrong.

Did he falsify business records? Yes

Did he falsify business records in order to help get himself elected? Yes he was in the middle of a presidential campaign and committed fraud to bury an embarrassing story.

Does New York have a law about that? Yes
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152
Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. 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.

Does New York have a law that bumps falsifying business records up to a felony when it is part of another crime? Yes
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10
Falsifying business records in the first degree.
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

A long winded way of saying you didn't understand, but message received.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-31-2024, 06:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A long winded way of saying you didn't understand, but message received.

Right.

I’d be afraid to talk facts if I was on your side too.

[GMDino]

(05-31-2024, 06:34 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Right.

I’d be afraid to talk facts if I was on your side too.

Unfortunately for too many the only "fact" that matters is that they went after Trump.

Doesn't matter how many other times it happened or to who.  

"Trust the legal system"...unless it disturbs your political views I guess.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-31-2024, 05:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You either didn't read the article or you didn't understand what you read.  

I hate Trump is what he said

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-31-2024, 06:34 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Right.

I’d be afraid to talk facts if I was on your side too.

Facts?

It's pretty clear this was done to keep Trump off the campaign trail and tied up in court.  
Charged before we vote, and win an easy appeal (after the voting is over). 

No matter how you try to look at it, it's a fairly weak case. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-31-2024, 06:59 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Facts?

It's pretty clear this was done to keep Trump off the campaign trail and tied up in court.  
Charged before we vote, and win an easy appeal (after the voting is over). 

No matter how you try to look at it, it's a fairly weak case. 

There is the text of law right up above. Feel free to consider facts instead of parroting right wing media.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-31-2024, 06:34 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Right.

I’d be afraid to talk facts if I was on your side too.

You mean the facts from the article I posted that you can't address?

(05-31-2024, 06:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: Unfortunately for too many the only "fact" that matters is that they went after Trump.

Doesn't matter how many other times it happened or to who.  

"Trust the legal system"...unless it disturbs your political views I guess.

You mean the facts from the article I posted that you're running from?  There are legitimate points being made that you're clearly incapable of addressing.  The cognitive dissonance is honestly impressive.

Now hit me with the cry response emjoi.   DINO STYLE!   

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-31-2024, 06:51 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I hate Trump is what he said

That's literally every single one of his posts at this point.  A tempter tantrum about Trump.

(05-31-2024, 07:12 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: There is the text of law right up above. Feel free to consider facts instead of parroting right wing media.

Yes, the right wing media as exemplified by New York magazine. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-31-2024, 07:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You mean the facts from the article I posted that you can't address?


You mean the facts from the article I posted that you're running from?  There are legitimate points being made that you're clearly incapable of addressing.  The cognitive dissonance is honestly impressive.

Now hit me with the cry response emjoi.   DINO STYLE!   

Like what the $35 donation?

If that is grounds for recusal. Well then we need to talk about SCoTUS and Cannon.

How many POTUS candidates do you think we have had that cheated on their wife and cooked up a scheme to pay the mistress to stay silent and then falsified financial records to hide/write off the hush money? Do you or the author think this happens all the time and we just ignore it?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-31-2024, 07:32 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Like what the $35 donation?

Well, that would be one of the everything you didn't address, yes.  The least important, but one of them.

Quote:If that is grounds for recusal. Well then we need to talk about SCoTUS and Cannon.

So, ignore that it's against the rules for this judge?  Also, you do know it's not against the rules for a SCOTUS justice, right?  Argue whether that's consistent, sure, but ignore it completely?  Nah.

Quote:How many POTUS candidates do you think we have had that cheated on their wife and cooked up a scheme to pay the mistress to stay silent and then falsified financial records to hide/write off the hush money? Do you or the author think this happens all the time and we just ignore it?

Yes, he does, and yes, I do.  Not the exact, blow by blow scenario, but far more egregious things have been done by former POTUS' and if you think otherwise then you're either mentally handicapped or childishly naïve.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-31-2024, 07:32 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Like what the $35 donation?

If that is grounds for recusal. Well then we need to talk about SCoTUS and Cannon.

How many POTUS candidates do you think we have had that cheated on their wife and cooked up a scheme to pay the mistress to stay silent and then falsified financial records to hide/write off the hush money? Do you or the author think this happens all the time and we just ignore it?

Well considering you guys are throwing a hissy over who a SCOTUS is politically aligned with....

Let's take a look at this little ethics code violation, maybe Bels can clear it up for us on how this applies to the Judge involved in this case:

Model Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 4
Specifically Rule 4:1
(4)    solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution* to a political organization or a candidate for public office;




Wouldn't his $ donation be a major violation as he's not showing impartiality?

[samhain]

(05-31-2024, 07:50 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Well considering you guys are throwing a hissy over who a SCOTUS is politically aligned with....

Let's take a look at this little ethics code violation, maybe Bels can clear it up for us on how this applies to the Judge involved in this case:

Model Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 4
Specifically Rule 4:1
(4)    solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution* to a political organization or a candidate for public office;




Wouldn't his $ donation be a major violation as he's not showing impartiality?

If it indeed is, then how on earth could and actual ex-president's defense team overlook such an obvious disqualifier?  They could have delayed the case and asked for another judge long before the day after the verdict.  

Either they knew it and it will amount to nothing (likely), or they are just the typical incompentent central casting losers that tend to work for Trump (also, not impossible, I must admit).

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-31-2024, 07:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, that would be one of the everything you didn't address, yes.  The least important, but one of them.



So, ignore that it's against the rules for this judge?  Also, you do know it's not against the rules for a SCOTUS justice, right?  Argue whether that's consistent, sure, but ignore it completely?  Nah.


Yes, he does, and yes, I do.  Not the exact, blow by blow scenario, but far more egregious things have been done by former POTUS' and if you think otherwise then you're either mentally handicapped or childishly naïve.  

And he got caught and punished “cautioned”. So a mark on his record if he messes up in the future. And he wasn’t the only one. “dozens of New York judges who had violated the rules against political contributions in recent years. Most were modest amounts, the report said, and many appeared to stem from the misperception that the rules only apply to state campaigns.” https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/17/nyregion/trump-trial-judge-merchan-donations.html

So because someone may have gotten away with a crime in the past, it is absolutely unfair for this guy to be held accountable for his actions? I can’t even…

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-31-2024, 06:59 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Facts?

It's pretty clear this was done to keep Trump off the campaign trail and tied up in court.  
Charged before we vote, and win an easy appeal (after the voting is over). 

No matter how you try to look at it, it's a fairly weak case. 

It certainly appears that way.

But that is the point of lawfare.

The rest of the world is laughing at the mess the USA has become.

[*pally*]

(05-31-2024, 08:24 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: It certainly appears that way.

But that is the point of lawfare.

The rest of the world is laughing at the mess the USA has become.

They are laughing because of Trump.

But more realistically the world is frightened, an unstable USA leads to chaos thoughout the world

[GMDino]

(05-31-2024, 07:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You mean the facts from the article I posted that you can't address?


You mean the facts from the article I posted that you're running from?  There are legitimate points being made that you're clearly incapable of addressing.  The cognitive dissonance is honestly impressive.

Now hit me with the cry response emjoi.   DINO STYLE!   

You are really taking this judgement hard.

Everything was done above board and in the open.  If anything is there where an appeal can be won it will hav to go through the system.

Relax.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-31-2024, 08:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: You are really taking this judgement hard.

Everything was done above board and in the open.  If anything is there where an appeal can be won it will hav to go through the system.

Relax.

You're certainly doing everything you can to avoid the actual substance of the points being made.  As explained, everything was not done above board, whether there is an appeals process or not.  My bad if I'm actually concerned about the future of the country.