Monday, April 15th: First Ever Criminal Trial for a Former US President

[HisArpy]

The DA likely already outlined that. As an attorney would you allow a case to proceed if your client wasn’t charged with a crime?

Likely isn't IS.

It's not a crime to keep negative information about someone from being exposed. If it is, then Brandon is in deep deep DEEP trouble about Ashley's diary, and Hunter's laptop, and all those family bank accounts that filtered the money from China and Ukraine. Where's your outrage over those things? Why aren't you 100% behind the House impeachment committee?

As a fact, the Trump indictment doesn't name a crime or statute for the felony offense. It's not in there and reaching for "the DA likely..." isn't good enough. Trump has a due process right to know what charges he's facing. If the indictment doesn't name the charge, it's a violation of that right. You also can't bootstrap expired misdemeanors into felonies without naming the crime those misdemeanors are intended to cover up. Again, the indictment doesn't name that crime, it only alleges conduct which is LEGAL.

As for the last, Trump legal team has made several motions to the court for dismissal and mistrial. So far the judge (who has received a caution letter from the state judicial council for his biased democrat political contributions and activities) has decided against Trump's attorneys and allowed the case to proceed despite the due process violation and failure by the DA to name the crime Trump is charged with that elevates the misdemeanors into felonies.

 

[Comshaw]

And yet, you continue to do so.

Where have I argued with anyone? I do state my opinion and facts, more debate than argument. Of course, I could follow your style and desend to childish idiotic insults that do nothing to clarify a subject or situation. Perhaps you and Ish should get together and compare notes on what insults to use.


Comshaw

 

[icanhelp1]

The DA likely already outlined that. As an attorney would you allow a case to proceed if your client wasn’t charged with a crime?

I don’t think a defense attorney has a choice on how the prosecution forwards its case. The defense can put forward motions but what happens after that I believe is up to the judge.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Likely isn't IS.

It's not a crime to keep negative information about someone from being exposed. If it is, then Brandon is in deep deep DEEP trouble about Ashely's diary and Hunter's laptop, and all those family bank accounts that filtered the money from China and Ukraine. Where's your outrage over those things? Why aren't you 100% behind the House impeachment committee?

As a fact, the Trump indictment doesn't name a crime or statute for the felony offense. It's not in there and reaching for "the DA likely..." isn't good enough. Trump has a due process right to know what charges he's facing. If the indictment doesn't name the charge, it's a violation of that right. You also can't bootstrap expired misdemeanors into felonies without naming the crime those misdemeanors are intended to cover up. Again, the indictment doesn't name that crime.

As for the last, Trump legal team has made several motions to the court for dismissal and mistrial. So far the judge (who has received a caution letter from the state judicial council for his biased democrat political contributions and activities) has decided against Trump's attorneys and allowed the case to proceed despite the due process violation and failure by the DA to name the crime Trump is charged with that elevates the misdemeanors into felonies.

What a surprise, you wouldn’t answer a direct question either.
Other than the DA explicitly telling the jury what the crime is, why don’t you think the DA outlined the crime?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I don’t think a defense attorney has a choice on how the prosecution forwards its case. The defense can put forward motions but what happens after that I believe is up to the judge.

Now we’re getting somewhere.
So when the defense made a motion to drop the case because the prosecution didn’t outline a crime, what was the judge’s ruling?

 

[HisArpy]

What a surprise, you wouldn’t answer a direct question either.
Other than the DA explicitly telling the jury what the crime is, why don’t you think the DA outlined the crime?

I answered. I answered directly - there is NO CRIME. the indictment only alleges LEGAL ACTS as the things which make the misdemeanors into felonies. It does that because the misdemeanors can't be brought because the statute of limitations has expired for them UNLESS there's another crime which those misdemeanors are intended to cover up.

You're the one who refuses to answer directly. WHAT CRIME? Agreeing to keep negative information quiet isn't a crime.

 

[HisArpy]

Now we’re getting somewhere.
So when the defense made a motion to drop the case because the prosecution didn’t outline a crime, what was the judge’s ruling?

I believe that's the subject of a hearing on Monday. It's called a motion for a directed verdict.

There is a way out for the DA, the judge can allow them to reopen their case and present additional evidence PROVIDED that the defense has already been apprised of the charge they intend to introduce evidence for.

A charge which seems to be missing from the indictment. Oops...

The DA cannot bring additional charges at this point or amend the criminal complaint/indictment to allege new offenses. So, unless there's a valid charge in the indictment/criminal complaint, the DA is probably out of luck.

Not that the judge is going to grant the defense motion anyway, he's compromised and biased against the defendant.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I answered. I answered directly - there is NO CRIME. the indictment only alleges LEGAL ACTS as the things which make the misdemeanors into felonies. It does that because the misdemeanors can't be brought because the statute of limitations has expired for them UNLESS there's another crime which those misdemeanors are intended to cover up.

You're the one who refuses to answer directly. WHAT CRIME? Agreeing to keep negative information quiet isn't a crime.

As a point of fact you didn’t. You invented your own question and then answered that.
I have provided you with the answer to your question. The DA directly told the jury what the crime was.
in a surprise to no one on this board you’re not being honest about what the DA has said and done.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I believe that's the subject of a hearing on Monday. It's called a motion for a directed verdict.

There is a way out for the DA, the judge can allow them to reopen their case and present additional evidence PROVIDED that the defense has already been apprised of the charge they intend to introduce evidence for.

A charge which seems to be missing from the indictment. Oops...

The DA cannot bring additional charges at this point or amend the criminal complaint/indictment to allege new offenses. So, unless there's a valid charge in the indictment/criminal complaint, the DA is probably out of luck.

Not that the judge is going to grant the defense motion anyway, he's compromised and biased against the defendant.

Or the more likely reality is that there is legitimate evidence that Trump committed crimes and the trial should continue.

 

[HisArpy]

Or the more likely reality is that there is legitimate evidence that Trump committed crimes and the trial should continue.

Most legal scholars don't believe so. Some do, but most don't. The problem is that the judge is caught between a rock and a hard place. He's compromised and biased against the defense. The caution letter from the judicial council proves that there's an appearance of impropriety and he should have recused himself.

If he rules against the motion, it's more proof of bias. If he rules for the defense, the Left will scream about how Trump is guilty but is getting off on a technicality. A technicality which is really the entire point of having laws about procedure and due process.

Personally I'm hoping the judge does dismiss. That way Trump can sue the crap out of Bragg for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. The DOJ can prosecute him (and maybe the judge too) for election interference if Trump wins in November. I really hope so because sonsabitches like Bragg and Merchan deserve whatever they get because they abuse the law for personal gain.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Most legal scholars don't believe so. Some do, but most don't. The problem is that the judge is caught between a rock and a hard place. He's compromised and biased against the defense. The caution letter from the judicial council proves that there's an appearance of impropriety and he should have recused himself.

If he rules against the motion, it's more proof of bias. If he rules for the defense, the Left will scream about how Trump is guilty but is getting off on a technicality. A technicality which is really the entire point of having laws about procedure and due process.

Personally I'm hoping the judge does dismiss. That way Trump can sue the crap out of Bragg for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. The DOJ can prosecute him (and maybe the judge too) for election interference if Trump wins in November. I really hope so because sonsabitches like Bragg and Merchan deserve whatever they get because they abuse the law for personal gain.

Just because a judge makes a ruling someone doesn’t like is no proof of a bias.

 

[jaF0]

..

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

You still haven’t read the article.
“Colangelo went on to weave a tale in which Trump, then-National Enquirer chief David Pecker, and Trump lawyer Michael Cohen “formed a conspiracy … to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information about Mr. Trump in order to help him get elected.”

That’s from your link.

Great to see you’ve opened the link. Now read what follows. Nothing in the “conspiracy” is illegal. It’s not a crime to pay hush money. Bragg has not identified a crime that was committed or covered up.

You had three parts of this conspiracy,” Colangelo told the jury. “You had the agreement to run positive coverage; you had the agreement to attack his opponents; and then the core of the conspiracy was David Pecker’s agreement to act as the eyes and ears for the campaign in an effort to locate damaging information about the defendant and then take steps to try to bury it to help Trump get elected.” Reading this, you might notice one thing about this conspiracy: Nothing that Colangelo described was illegal.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Great to see you’ve opened the link. Now read what follows. Nothing in the “conspiracy” is illegal. It’s not a crime to pay hush money. Bragg has not identified a crime that was committed or covered up.

You had three parts of this conspiracy,” Colangelo told the jury. “You had the agreement to run positive coverage; you had the agreement to attack his opponents; and then the core of the conspiracy was David Pecker’s agreement to act as the eyes and ears for the campaign in an effort to locate damaging information about the defendant and then take steps to try to bury it to help Trump get elected.” Reading this, you might notice one thing about this conspiracy: Nothing that Colangelo described was illegal.

Wrong.
The person who wrote the article believes that it isn’t illegal to commit a crime to influence an election. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a crime. The DA believes it is, and so far the judge believes there’s enough evidence for this to go to trial.

 

[jomar]

Not that the judge is going to grant the defense motion anyway, he's compromised and biased against the defendant.

How so? He’s pretty much called it down the middle and has bent over backwards with trying to not put trump in jail with the gag order stuff.

 

[jomar]

The caution letter from the judicial council proves that there's an appearance of impropriety and he should have recused himself.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...n-merchan-trump-trial-political-contributions

If so, I guess Alito and Thomas should recuse.

 

[Lazaran]

Wrong.
The person who wrote the article believes that it isn’t illegal to commit a crime to influence an election. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a crime. The DA believes it is, and so far the judge believes there’s enough evidence for this to go to trial.

It’s fascinating watching you spoon feed the realities of the case to the biased MAGAt babies.

Of course, they immediately spit up those realities because their tiny biased MAGAt baby brains reject anything that doesn’t conform to their pre-established views.

Truth and reality are like a severe food allergy to biased MAGAt babies.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

It’s fascinating watching you spoon feed the realities of the case to the biased MAGAt babies.

Of course, they immediately spit up those realities because their tiny biased MAGAt baby brains reject anything that doesn’t conform to their pre-established views.

Truth and reality are like a severe food allergy to MAGAts.

They’re in a cult.

 

[Lazaran]

They’re in a cult.

Yep.

Unfortunately, an online intervention has little chance of deprogramming them.

It’s still fun and fascinating to watch, though.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Wrong.
The person who wrote the article believes that it isn’t illegal to commit a crime to influence an election. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a crime. The DA believes it is, and so far the judge believes there’s enough evidence for this to go to trial.

It’s not illegal to pay hush money to bury a story about a sexual encounter or anything else that might be damaging or embarrassing. Bragg hints that Trump might have violated a federal campaign finance law but there’s a problem with that. Trump hasn’t been convicted or even charged with violating federal campaign finance laws. This is clearly explained in the WSJ and Washington Examiner articles as well as other reports on the trial.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

It’s not illegal to pay hush money to bury a story about a sexual encounter or anything else that might be damaging or embarrassing. Bragg hints that Trump might have violated a federal campaign finance law but there’s a problem with that. Trump hasn’t been convicted or even charged with violating federal campaign finance laws. This is clearly explained in the WSJ and Washington Examiner articles as well as other reports on the trial.

It’s interesting to hear you say Trump had a sexual encounter with Daniels.
Trump isn’t on trial for killing a story.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

It’s interesting to hear you say Trump had a sexual encounter with Daniels.
Trump isn’t on trial for killing a story.

He’s on trial for falsifying business records which, if found guilty, is a misdemeanor. He’s charged with felonies because the prosecution is arguing he deliberately falsified records to commit or conceal a crime. But we don’t know what the alleged crime is. That’s the gaping hole in Bragg’s case.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

He’s on trial for falsifying business records which, if found guilty, is a misdemeanor. He’s charged with felonies because the prosecution is arguing he deliberately falsified records to commit or conceal a crime. But we don’t know what the alleged crime is. That’s the gaping hole in Bragg’s case.

We do know because according to your article he explicitly spelled it out.

 

[icanhelp1]

They’re in a cult.

CULT? You Lit loons sit here with bated breath hoping and a wishing that the prosecution has exposed the jury to enough salacious and irrelevant testimony as to completely confuse the jury, disguising irrelevant testimony as criminal behavior, or trying to convince the jury that legal behavior is illegal! Conspiracy to commit future crime? What crime? what statute? It will be really really interesting if the defense calls Costello to the stand. He can prove Bragg withheld exculpatory evidence from the grand jury, evidence that would have shut these manufactured indictments down right from the onset of these ridiculous charges. After the November election Bragg could find himself and his office on the receiving end of lawsuits for abuse of power, abuse of judicial canon by failure to follow the rules of evidence and subornation of perjury. IMHO

 

[icanhelp1]

He’s on trial for falsifying business records which, if found guilty, is a misdemeanor. He’s charged with felonies because the prosecution is arguing he deliberately falsified records to commit or conceal a crime. But we don’t know what the alleged crime is. That’s the gaping hole in Bragg’s case.

A misdemeanor that has outrun the statute of limitations. Bootstrapping a federal crime to a state misdemeanor charge.