https://x.com/mjtruthultra/status/18...854973648?s=42
BAHAHAHA
- bambino
- 09-06-2024, 05:31 PM
- Salty Again
- 09-06-2024, 11:01 PM
... The case will be overturned - like all the others.
This Judge will move the sentence again - as Trump will be
President-Elect come November.
#### Salty
This Judge will move the sentence again - as Trump will be
President-Elect come November.
#### Salty
- eyecu2
- 09-09-2024, 11:07 AM
... The case will be overturned - like all the others.Or..
This Judge will move the sentence again - as Trump will be
President-Elect come November.
#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
Merchan has decided that the offense merits a confinement and that surely would have a impact on the election with it this close. I'm betting that if Michael Cohen got 3 yrs., that this is more likely the situation, but we're all gonna see in Nov. how this all shakes out. If Trump wins in Nov.- likely the sentencing would be mute- and have to be tossed via supreme court due to presidential duties etc., but if he's not elected- all bets are off. In my opinion
- tommy156
- 09-09-2024, 11:22 AM
The only reason trump is running for POTUS is to stay out of prison, and winning is the only way for him to avoid prison.
He's going to get more and more desperate as the election gets closer. It's going to be hilarious, sad and dangerous all at the same time.
Like a fucking cockroach backed into a corner.
He's going to get more and more desperate as the election gets closer. It's going to be hilarious, sad and dangerous all at the same time.
Like a fucking cockroach backed into a corner.
- The_Waco_Kid
- 09-10-2024, 01:46 AM
Or..
Merchan has decided that the offense merits a confinement and that surely would have a impact on the election with it this close. I'm betting that if Michael Cohen got 3 yrs., that this is more likely the situation, but we're all gonna see in Nov. how this all shakes out. If Trump wins in Nov.- likely the sentencing would be mute- and have to be tossed via supreme court due to presidential duties etc., but if he's not elected- all bets are off. In my opinion Originally Posted by eyecu2
Or ..
Merchan has decided that his case is so flawed it will get overturned and he's trying to bury it so he won't embarrass himself
The only reason trump is running for POTUS is to stay out of prison, and winning is the only way for him to avoid prison.
He's going to get more and more desperate as the election gets closer. It's going to be hilarious, sad and dangerous all at the same time.
Like a fucking cockroach backed into a corner. Originally Posted by tommy156
Trump is not going to prison. win or lose. never.
- tommy156
- 09-10-2024, 10:25 AM
- The_Waco_Kid
- 09-10-2024, 10:26 AM
- tommy156
- 09-10-2024, 10:31 AM
- eyecu2
- 09-10-2024, 07:51 PM
the appellate court will say so Originally Posted by The_Waco_KidThe courts in NY have no love for DJT, and he is in real jeopardy should he lose in November. He has appealed EJean Carrol and that fell flat. The fact that DJTs legal counsel has been deficient in winning any of his appeals.
Perhaps you can point to some major appellate rulings he's won? Even Jack Smith re-wrote the GA indictment and it's back in play. Just saying....his needs are a "win or go to jail"
- The_Waco_Kid
- 09-10-2024, 08:13 PM
If he loses, the hush money trial will be the least of his worries. It's the least severe of any of the indictments. His personal hell will just be getting started. Originally Posted by tommy156
Trump will never go to jail.
The courts in NY have no love for DJT, and he is in real jeopardy should he lose in November. He has appealed EJean Carrol and that fell flat. The fact that DJTs legal counsel has been deficient in winning any of his appeals.
Perhaps you can point to some major appellate rulings he's won? Even Jack Smith re-wrote the GA indictment and it's back in play. Just saying....his needs are a "win or go to jail" Originally Posted by eyecu2
ask yourself why Smith had to re-write it. wasn't it a "perfect indictment"? air-tight? apparently not. as he usually does Jack Smith shit himself.
Merchan was hand picked. he wasn't even part of the regular rotation.
you can't hand-pick the appellate court.even in New York.
- eyecu2
- 09-11-2024, 01:30 PM
I'm pretty sure that since Jack Smith's case involved some duties that could be construed as doing work relating to the office of President, that is why he rewrote it with the supreme Court ruling in mind. However many of the allegations in his filing also show Trump as a private citizen and those are the ones that were refiled. Nobody ever said that Jack Smith was perfect, the only person saying perfect is DJT about his phone calls and meetings. But of course the proof will be in the pudding so we'll see where things land
- bambino
- 09-11-2024, 07:02 PM
I'm pretty sure that since Jack Smith's case involved some duties that could be construed as doing work relating to the office of President, that is why he rewrote it with the supreme Court ruling in mind. However many of the allegations in his filing also show Trump as a private citizen and those are the ones that were refiled. Nobody ever said that Jack Smith was perfect, the only person saying perfect is DJT about his phone calls and meetings. But of course the proof will be in the pudding so we'll see where things land Originally Posted by eyecu2Please Eye, post these “many allegations” that show Trump was acting as a private citizen. He was POTUS at the time. It’s a 24/7 job unless you’re Joey Bribes. Who’s been on vacation 60% of his presidency.
- The_Waco_Kid
- 09-11-2024, 07:52 PM
this case is clearly flawed, biggly!
Donald Trump Trial's Four 'Compelling Problems' Outlined by Legal Analyst
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...turley-1907211
Following former President Donald Trump's guilty verdict in his criminal hush money case, attorney and legal analyst Jonathan Turley outlined his thoughts on four "compelling problems" in the trial on Saturday.
In a case brought forward by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a New York jury on Thursday found Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records relating to a hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels by Trump's then-lawyer Michael Cohen shortly before the 2016 presidential election. Daniels alleged she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, which he denies. Trump has maintained his innocence and says the case is politically motivated. His legal team says they will fight the case, which will include an appeal, if necessary.
In an opinion piece published by The Hill on Saturday titled, "Bragg's thrill kill in Manhattan could prove short-lived on appeal," Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School who has been highly critical of Bragg's office prosecuting the former president, discussed how "some of the most compelling problems can be divided into four groups," including the judge, charges, evidence and instructions.
The Judge
In his opinion piece, the attorney pointed out problems with Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the case, as he wrote that Merchan was "hand-picked for this case rather than randomly selected" as he took aim at the judge for "a record of highly biased decisions."
He added: "This is only the latest in a litany of Trump cases where Merchan has meted out tough rulings against Trump and his organization. In watching Merchan in the courtroom, I was shocked by his rulings as at times incomprehensible and conflicted."
The Charges
In regards to the charges, Turley wrote that Bragg's office was unclear with them, referencing federal election laws the Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to charge Trump with.
"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," he wrote.
Trump was charged with 34 counts of first-degree falsification of business records, with the prosecution laying out the charges in a chart that jurors saw several times during the trial.
The Evidence
Turley continued to point out witness testimony as part of the evidence factor, citing Merchan for allowing the plea agreement of Cohen to be introduced.
"Merchan was equally conflicted in his other orders. For example, he allowed the prosecutors to introduce the plea agreement of Michael Cohen to federal election violations as well as the non-prosecution agreement of David Pecker on such violations. However, it was allowed only for the purposes of credibility and context," he added.
Cohen, who was the prosecution's star witness, served prison time after pleading guilty to eight criminal counts, including campaign finance violations related to the alleged hush money scheme.
The Instructions
Turley has also previously called the jury deliberations "a canned hunt" based on Merchan's jury instructions as he reiterated on Saturday by writing, "The court largely used standard instructions in a case that was anything but standard. However, the instruction also allowed for doubt as to what the jury would ultimately find."
Opposing Views
However, other legal analysts have disagreed with Turley's points.
In a Substack article titled "Felon" that was published on Friday, Joyce Vance, who served as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama from 2009 to 2017, outlined four areas she believed would be key issues, including evidence, if an appeal were to happen.
"Defendants frequently argue this on appeal but only rarely win," her post said. "The question is whether a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty, and there was sufficient evidence here to support that conclusion."
Vance also wrote another point of contention that could be raised would be whether the judge was correct to allow the jury to return a unanimous verdict about the object crime "but not the means used to accomplish it." On this point, Vance wrote she believed Bragg appeared to have a "strong argument."
Vance had explained this in a previous post: "There are a number of different unlawful means Trump and his co-conspirators could have used to try and influence the election. The law says the jury doesn't have to agree unanimously on which one of them Trump used, and that's how the Judge instructed the jury. This is consistent with New York law; there is nothing wrong about this."
When asked on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Friday what swayed the jury to convict Trump of all 34 counts with expediency, legal analyst Lisa Rubin said, "I think what happened, is evidence happened. And the evidence in this case was overwhelming."
Rubin added that Trump "was convicted largely on the words of two categories of people, his acolytes—starting with [former media executive] David Pecker and ending with [former Trump aides] Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout—and his own words heard by the jury," citing a recorded 2016 phone call between Trump and Cohen.
Donald Trump Trial's Four 'Compelling Problems' Outlined by Legal Analyst
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...turley-1907211
Following former President Donald Trump's guilty verdict in his criminal hush money case, attorney and legal analyst Jonathan Turley outlined his thoughts on four "compelling problems" in the trial on Saturday.
In a case brought forward by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a New York jury on Thursday found Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records relating to a hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels by Trump's then-lawyer Michael Cohen shortly before the 2016 presidential election. Daniels alleged she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, which he denies. Trump has maintained his innocence and says the case is politically motivated. His legal team says they will fight the case, which will include an appeal, if necessary.
In an opinion piece published by The Hill on Saturday titled, "Bragg's thrill kill in Manhattan could prove short-lived on appeal," Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School who has been highly critical of Bragg's office prosecuting the former president, discussed how "some of the most compelling problems can be divided into four groups," including the judge, charges, evidence and instructions.
The Judge
In his opinion piece, the attorney pointed out problems with Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the case, as he wrote that Merchan was "hand-picked for this case rather than randomly selected" as he took aim at the judge for "a record of highly biased decisions."
He added: "This is only the latest in a litany of Trump cases where Merchan has meted out tough rulings against Trump and his organization. In watching Merchan in the courtroom, I was shocked by his rulings as at times incomprehensible and conflicted."
The Charges
In regards to the charges, Turley wrote that Bragg's office was unclear with them, referencing federal election laws the Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to charge Trump with.
"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," he wrote.
Trump was charged with 34 counts of first-degree falsification of business records, with the prosecution laying out the charges in a chart that jurors saw several times during the trial.
The Evidence
Turley continued to point out witness testimony as part of the evidence factor, citing Merchan for allowing the plea agreement of Cohen to be introduced.
"Merchan was equally conflicted in his other orders. For example, he allowed the prosecutors to introduce the plea agreement of Michael Cohen to federal election violations as well as the non-prosecution agreement of David Pecker on such violations. However, it was allowed only for the purposes of credibility and context," he added.
Cohen, who was the prosecution's star witness, served prison time after pleading guilty to eight criminal counts, including campaign finance violations related to the alleged hush money scheme.
The Instructions
Turley has also previously called the jury deliberations "a canned hunt" based on Merchan's jury instructions as he reiterated on Saturday by writing, "The court largely used standard instructions in a case that was anything but standard. However, the instruction also allowed for doubt as to what the jury would ultimately find."
Opposing Views
However, other legal analysts have disagreed with Turley's points.
In a Substack article titled "Felon" that was published on Friday, Joyce Vance, who served as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama from 2009 to 2017, outlined four areas she believed would be key issues, including evidence, if an appeal were to happen.
"Defendants frequently argue this on appeal but only rarely win," her post said. "The question is whether a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty, and there was sufficient evidence here to support that conclusion."
Vance also wrote another point of contention that could be raised would be whether the judge was correct to allow the jury to return a unanimous verdict about the object crime "but not the means used to accomplish it." On this point, Vance wrote she believed Bragg appeared to have a "strong argument."
Vance had explained this in a previous post: "There are a number of different unlawful means Trump and his co-conspirators could have used to try and influence the election. The law says the jury doesn't have to agree unanimously on which one of them Trump used, and that's how the Judge instructed the jury. This is consistent with New York law; there is nothing wrong about this."
When asked on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Friday what swayed the jury to convict Trump of all 34 counts with expediency, legal analyst Lisa Rubin said, "I think what happened, is evidence happened. And the evidence in this case was overwhelming."
Rubin added that Trump "was convicted largely on the words of two categories of people, his acolytes—starting with [former media executive] David Pecker and ending with [former Trump aides] Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout—and his own words heard by the jury," citing a recorded 2016 phone call between Trump and Cohen.
- eyecu2
- 09-11-2024, 08:21 PM
Turley and his opinion is right leaning, despite the claims of him being a Democrat. He's only on one network if that tells you ANYTHING.
Therefore his conclusions are no surprise as they come from the DJT network that has been forced to pay almost 800 million dollars for lying about Trump and his election.
Also, anytime a person is acting as a candidate vs a POTUS, that is what is being referred to here by Jack Smiths filings.
Despite bams claim of a 24/7 job, that's just not the case. Every time Trump went to a rally or held a election related speech, or raised money, or spent money on his election, or had conversations about his CANDIDACY in an election, that is NOT official acts of a president. They are acts as a candidate for office.
Despite your claim, the ruling was NOT 100% immunity RATHER
The current law on this subject is relatively simple: Until changed by the Supreme Court, a president may not be charged with a crime for anything he does while he is acting as president. Once he leaves office, a president may be charged for any crimes he may have committed in office, unless they can be characterized as “official acts” within the capacious framework of Article II of the Constitution, which outlines the powers of the presidency. There is no such category as “private acts,” just acts that are not “official acts.”
so candidate Trump can be subject to charges when not doing official acts of the office. (Like being a candidate for it instead.)
Therefore his conclusions are no surprise as they come from the DJT network that has been forced to pay almost 800 million dollars for lying about Trump and his election.
Also, anytime a person is acting as a candidate vs a POTUS, that is what is being referred to here by Jack Smiths filings.
Despite bams claim of a 24/7 job, that's just not the case. Every time Trump went to a rally or held a election related speech, or raised money, or spent money on his election, or had conversations about his CANDIDACY in an election, that is NOT official acts of a president. They are acts as a candidate for office.
Despite your claim, the ruling was NOT 100% immunity RATHER
The current law on this subject is relatively simple: Until changed by the Supreme Court, a president may not be charged with a crime for anything he does while he is acting as president. Once he leaves office, a president may be charged for any crimes he may have committed in office, unless they can be characterized as “official acts” within the capacious framework of Article II of the Constitution, which outlines the powers of the presidency. There is no such category as “private acts,” just acts that are not “official acts.”
so candidate Trump can be subject to charges when not doing official acts of the office. (Like being a candidate for it instead.)
- bambino
- 09-11-2024, 08:28 PM
Turley and his opinion is right leaning, despite the claims of him being a Democrat. He's only on one network if that tells you ANYTHING.He was still POTUS. Period. End of the story. Your touchy, feely, Libby bullshit doesn’t fly.
Therefore his conclusions are no surprise as they come from the DJT network that has been forced to pay almost 800 million dollars for lying about Trump and his election.
Also, anytime a person is acting. As a candidate vs a POTUS, that is what is being referred to here by Jack Smiths filings.
Despite bams claim of a 24/7 job, that's just not the case.
Despite your claim, the ruling was as such
The current law on this subject is relatively simple: Until changed by the Supreme Court, a president may not be charged with a crime for anything he does while he is acting as president. Once he leaves office, a president may be charged for any crimes he may have committed in office, unless they can be characterized as “official acts” within the capacious framework of Article II of the Constitution, which outlines the powers of the presidency. There is no such category as “private acts,” just acts that are not “official acts.”
Originally Posted by eyecu2