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

[SgtSpiderMan]

A misdemeanor that has outrun the statute of limitations.

What was the judges ruling when the defense bought that up?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Fuzzy is struggling too.

I'm not the one waffling on this. Your scores 2 to 2. I thought you were smarter than this.

 

[jaF0]

Trump isn’t on trial for killing a story.

The charges are falsifying business records, but the goal in doing that was killing the story to affect the outcome of the election.

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.

 

[HisArpy]

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.

He's used nearly every opportunity to rule against the defendant. The gag order is a perfect example. SINCE WHEN does a judge order a defendant to not protest his innocence upon a finding of contempt while everyone else can slander him with impunity?

The motions for mistrial are another example of judicial bias against the defense. The standing objection against Stormy Daniels' testimony is another - even the judge felt the testimony went too far and then tried to blame the defense for not objecting. Except THEY DID!

Every possible opportunity to advance the trial was taken even in the face of obvious error on the part of the court. That's not "down the middle," it's bias.

It's also reversible error on appeal. Which almost 100% of legal scholars will agree on, and the ones that don't aren't legal scholars except in name only.

 

[icanhelp1]

The charges are falsifying business records, but the goal in doing that was killing the story to affect the outcome of the election.

A charge that both the FEC and SDNY refused to take up.

 

[HisArpy]

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

If so, I guess Alito and Thomas should recuse.

If you think their recusal will change the outcome of the trial, you're wrong. Not only is it irrelevant to the trial court, because not part of the trial, the Supremes have already litigated the issue and determined that their ethical rules don't require recusal for this type of thing.

You may disagree but your view isn't current precedent. Sorry about that.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

He's used nearly every opportunity to rule against the defendant. The gag order is a perfect example. SINCE WHEN does a judge order a defendant to not protest his innocence upon a finding of contempt while everyone else can slander him with impunity?

The motions for mistrial are another example of judicial bias against the defense. The standing objection against Stormy Daniels' testimony is another - even the judge felt the testimony went too far and then tried to blame the defense for not objecting. Except THEY DID!

Every possible opportunity to advance the trial was taken even in the face of obvious error on the part of the court. That's not "down the middle," it's bias.

It's also reversible error on appeal. Which almost 100% of legal scholars will agree on, and the ones that don't aren't legal scholars except in name only.

That’s not why the gag order was issued.
The judge was biased in making Trump attend his son’s graduation?

 

[icanhelp1]

What was the judges ruling when the defense bought that up?

You put too much faith in this compromised judge. I wasn’t there so I, like you, can only go by expert commentary. If you’re referring to the judge’s ruling on a motion to dismiss he shot it down.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You put too much faith in this compromised judge. I wasn’t there so I, like you, can only go by expert commentary. If you’re referring to the judge’s ruling on a motion to dismiss he shot it down.

There’s zero evidence that he’s compromised.

 

[HisArpy]

That’s not why the gag order was issued.
The judge was biased in making Trump attend his son’s graduation?

The purported basis for the gag order is that Trump was "threatening" court employees and frightening the jury. The evidence of this is that Trump grimaced at one point while facing the jury and he posted that the court and it's personnel are biased against him.

It's not a threat to roll your eyes when people say outlandish things. Yet the court said it was despite how FUCKING STUPID it sounds. As for posting that the court and it's personnel are biased - guess what, that's a claim of innocence and that the defendant is being railroaded. Yet the court deemed it threatening despite the FACTS of the judge contributing directly to democrats and Joe Biden (for which he was cautioned) AND his daughter fundraising off the trial and her father's connection to it.

It's obvious that the court attempted to hamstring Trump both politically and for defense purposes.

The request for Trump to attend Barron's graduation was originally DENIED until public outrage began to point out how inescapably biased the decisions were becoming. Only then, and because the DA had rested his case, was Trump allowed to go. Thus your twisting of reality doesn't actually follow the facts or events.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The purported basis for the gag order is that Trump was "threatening" court employees and frightening the jury. The evidence of this is that Trump grimaced at one point while facing the jury and he posted that the court and it's personnel are biased against him.

It's not a threat to roll your eyes when people say outlandish things. Yet the court said it was despite how FUCKING STUPID it sounds. As for posting that the court and it's personnel are biased - guess what, that's a claim of innocence and that the defendant is being railroaded. Yet the court deemed it threatening despite the FACTS of the judge contributing directly to democrats and Joe Biden (for which he was cautioned) AND his daughter fundraising off the trial and her father's connection to it.

It's obvious that the court attempted to hamstring Trump both politically and for defense purposes.

The request for Trump to attend Barron's graduation was originally DENIED until public outrage began to point out how inescapably biased the decisions were becoming. Only then, and because the DA had rested his case, was Trump allowed to go. Thus your twisting of reality doesn't actually follow the facts or events.

That’s also wrong.

 

[HisArpy]

That’s also wrong.

If you wish to think so you can certainly delude yourself all you like because no one can stop you.


That doesn't make your version of reality true. Something which you consistently have issues with on this board.

 

[HisArpy]

There’s zero evidence that he’s compromised.

Except there's that letter of caution from the NY Judicial Council about his political contributions in violation of ethical rules.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

If you wish to think so you can certainly delude yourself all you like because no one can stop you.


That doesn't make your version of reality true. Something which you consistently have issues with on this board.

Here’s some harsh reality from left leaning Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...hen-hes-violated-them-anyway/?sh=2ac2b7a1602e

“Manhattan Criminal Case: Judge Juan Merchan imposed a gag order in March that bars Trump from making public statements about witnesses concerning their participation in the case, or any statements about counsel, court staff and their family members that could interfere with the case—and then expanded the order to also include family members of the judge and District Attorney after Trump repeatedly lashed outagainst Merchan’s daughter on social media.”

Again, you’re simply wrong on facts.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Except there's that letter of caution from the NY Judicial Council about his political contributions in violation of ethical rules.

Interesting you saying judges shouldn’t be involved in politics. Should a judge hang an upside down flag and a “stop the steal” flag at their home?

 

[HisArpy]

Interesting you saying judges shouldn’t be involved in politics. Should a judge hang an upside down flag and a “stop the steal” flag at their home?

It wasn't Alito who did that and his ethical rules don't apply to anyone else in his family.

 

[HisArpy]

Here’s some harsh reality from left leaning Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...hen-hes-violated-them-anyway/?sh=2ac2b7a1602e

Again, you’re simply wrong on facts.

Adwall. Try again.

 

[Lazaran]

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.

^
Look at BabyBoobs being deliberately and embarrassingly obtuse in an attempt to gaslight about the legitimacy of the case.



Here’s a good read for some context about why the FEC didn’t pursue the corrupt orange traitor at the time Michael Cohen was charged and convicted for his part in the scheme:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/n...mp-of-his-hush-money-campaign-finance-issues/



Statutes of limitations definitely added to the difficulties in bringing this case, but Alvin Bragg has done a masterful job of connecting the dots between the falsification of business records and the illegal efforts / conspiracy to circumvent election / campaign finance laws



A grand jury and a judge agreed.



Let’s see if a another jury agrees.



BabyBoobs

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Adwall. Try again.

Because you’re an attorney who can’t find a way around a firewall.

 

[HisArpy]

Because you’re an attorney who can’t find a way around a firewall.

Not my problem. Your reference - you fix it or find a different source.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

It is not against the law to pay money to bury an embarrassing story. It could be a violation of federal campaign finance laws to not report the payments as a campaign expense, but Trump has not been convicted or even charged with violating federal election campaign laws.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Not my problem. Your reference - you fix it or find a different source.

That’s some totally healthy reality denying.

 

[HisArpy]

That’s some totally healthy reality denying.

This is not my problem either. You either manage to fix your reference or you don't. If you can't figure out how to copy/paste/quote function, again THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM.

 

[HisArpy]

It is not against the law to pay money to bury an embarrassing story. It could be a violation of federal campaign finance laws to not report the payments as a campaign expense, but Trump has not been convicted or even charged with violating federal election campaign laws.

But but they entered into a conspiracy to commit a legal act. A conspiracy dammit! Those are supposed to be illegal!!!!

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

^
Look at BabyBoobs being deliberately and embarrassingly obtuse in an attempt to gaslight about the legitimacy of the case.



Here’s a good read for some context about why the FEC didn’t pursue the corrupt orange traitor at the time Michael Cohen was charged and convicted for his part in the scheme:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/n...mp-of-his-hush-money-campaign-finance-issues/



Statutes of limitations definitely added to the difficulties in bringing this case, but Alvin Bragg has done a masterful job of connecting the dots between the falsification of business records and the illegal efforts / conspiracy to circumvent election / campaign finance laws



A grand jury, and a judge agreed.



Let’s see if a another jury agrees.



BabyBoobs

Thanks for confirming the FEC didn’t even pursue a case against Trump. Tough to argue he tried to cover up a federal campaign violation that the FEC didn’t even pursue. The trial is in New York so it’s anyone’s guess what happens but the fact remains, Bragg still hasn’t revealed what the “crime” was.