So, you really, really, really hate Trump

[icanhelp1]

You’re full of shit and the proof is below.

Give it up. All of this is inaccurate wishful MAGA lack of thinking and displays ignorance or denial of the facts.

A presidential candidate is not immune to prosecution for illegal acts regardless of whether there is an active campaign.

NY state law has its own statutes the conviction was brought on. Can you read?

https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10

§ 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.
Here’s the NY state election law that makes the business records falsification a felony:

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152

§ 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.

You’re full of shit and the proof is below.

Give it up. All of what you said is inaccurate wishful MAGA lack of thinking and displays ignorance or denial of the facts.

A presidential candidate is not immune to prosecution for illegal acts regardless of whether there is an active campaign.

NY state law has its own statutes the conviction was brought on. Can you read?

https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10

§ 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.


Here’s the NY state election law that makes the business records falsification a felony:

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152

§ 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.

I understand the law dipshit.

What you don’t seem to understand is that the charges are from 8 years ago and have long outrun the statute of limitations. The criminal charges are misdemeanors under NY state law.

Now, after your cut and paste tirade which points out only a portion of the trial, it failed to point out what the underlying federal charges the defendant was charged with. You understand that the federal charges carry with it federal guidelines.

First, under the sixth amendment the defendant is entitled and afforded by constitutional law to know what those charges are during the trial not after closing arguments by the prosecution. It is the duty of the prosecutor to present all charges, evidence and witness testimony to the jury (court) during the trial allowing the defendant to counter the prosecution’s said charges with counter arguments and exculpatory witness testimony. .

Federal crimes are out of the jurisdiction of state courts but since federal statutes were used to support state charges, one such statute alleged campaign finance violations which is a federal statute that FECA refused to charge. It is incumbent on the court to allow expert witness testimony without restrictions placed upon that witness. Merchan didn’t do that. The detailed explanation of the law as it related to the defendant was deemed inadmissible by the judge. Reversible error number one.

Restricting exculpatory witness testimony flies in the face of due process which lends credence to petitioning SCOTUS with a cert writ or common writ requesting a stay in sentencing till the state appellate court catches up. I believe using federal statutes also requires unanimity from the jury to convict on federal charges I may be mistaken but I don’t think so. I don’t believe using multiple federal charges like a Chinese dinner menu mixing and matching will stand up to the scrutiny of the higher courts especially to convict on multiple felony counts. imho

 

[rainsol]

The process in NY was in accordance with the laws, trial procedures, jury verdict, and soon-to-be sentencing for Trump.

What I fear most is the language of Donald Trump's rants about things he intends to do if elected: destroy the DOJ, prosecute his political opponents, suspend the Constitution, mass deportation by use of the National Guard/Army without the rule of law being applied, etc. Those kinds of things are on his to-do list as a substitute for justice.

It's disconcerting that the other cases against Trump are being held up by judges who are kicking the can down the road rather than providing swift and speedy trials for him. That seems to be along party lines as well.

Kept drinking the koolade dick wad, none of it was according to rules and laws, you can ask Jonathon Turley, he know more that you on a bad day

 

[jomar]

I understand the law dipshit.

What you don’t seem to understand is that the charges are from 8 years ago and have long outrun the statute of limitations. The criminal charges are misdemeanors under NY state law.

Now, after your cut and paste tirade which points out only a portion of the trial, it failed to point out what the underlying federal charges the defendant was charged with. You understand that the federal charges carry with it federal guidelines.

First, under the sixth amendment the defendant is entitled and afforded by constitutional law to know what those charges are during the trial not after closing arguments by the prosecution. It is the duty of the prosecutor to present all charges, evidence and witness testimony to the jury (court) during the trial allowing the defendant to counter the prosecution’s said charges with counter arguments and exculpatory witness testimony. .

Federal crimes are out of the jurisdiction of state courts but since federal statutes were used to support state charges, one such statute alleged campaign finance violations which is a federal statute that FECA refused to charge. It is incumbent on the court to allow expert witness testimony without restrictions placed upon that witness. Merchan didn’t do that. The detailed explanation of the law as it related to the defendant was deemed inadmissible by the judge. Reversible error number one.

Restricting exculpatory witness testimony flies in the face of due process which lends credence to petitioning SCOTUS with a cert writ or common writ requesting a stay in sentencing till the state appellate court catches up. I believe using federal statutes also requires unanimity from the jury to convict on federal charges I may be mistaken but I don’t think so. I don’t believe using multiple federal charges like a Chinese dinner menu mixing and matching will stand up to the scrutiny of the higher courts especially to convict on multiple felony counts. imho

1. So no worries about overturning the verdict, right?

2. Thanks for breaking up the wall of words.

3. You mad, bruh?

 

[colddiesel]

I don't hate Trump; hate requires the pre-requisite of either respect or fear. I just absolutely despise him and his cult followers, he and they being the most vile and disgusting filth an otherwise great country has ever produced.

 

[dmallord]

Kept drinking the koolade dick wad, none of it was according to rules and laws, you can ask Jonathon Turley, he know more that you on a bad day

No need to get nasty, rainsol.

Trump deserved his day in court, received that, and has at least three more trials in the wings pending. You know that old expression: where there is smoke–there must be fire? Donald is aflame at the moment.

My views are honed from watching and reading numerous sources. Your view is different; there is nothing wrong with that. I believe there is merit in this trial, though the case was predicated on new and unexplored foundations. After all, no former president has been in Donald Trump's position. He can appeal this. He can go through three levels at the NY state appeal process, and if he can't get 'justice,' he might be able to convince the Supreme Court to take up the case.

And just how did he get to this momentous point in history?

There are volumes written about his adventures in building his empire. Relatives have spoken up about him. It is doubtful that all of those negative events in his life are far from true:

• bad business practices, lies, bankruptcies galore,
• three marriages, cheating on those, sex scandals he denies,
• salacious comments about his daughter,
• belligerency, praising Al Capone, Putin, Viktor Orbon,
• attempted shakedowns,
• his role in the January 6th attack on the Capitol,
• mishandling classified documents, sharing top secret info with businessmen abroad,
• strong-arm threats of Georgia election officials to overturn the results,
• promoting fake electors,
• using Republican donors' funds to pay his own legal expenses,
• racial bias,
• bad-mouthing dead and wounded warriors, wouldn't even want them near him - bad optics
• bad hair, claiming to be smart, hired someone to take his SAT college entrance test
• bragging about acing a mental test a child could handle,
• and...more.

The current trial was determined by twelve citizens and he had a choice in selecting those in the jury selection process. The one major flaw in your cry is Trump's never-ceasing whine that he wants to testify, but he couldn't because...well, they would cross-examine him and trip him up. [His words.] On the news, he has often said that if you aren't guilty, you don't take the 'Fifth.' He did. He won't testify on his own behalf. What does that alone say about his guilt?

Jonathon Turley is a notable legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. His strength is First Amendment rights advocacy. He is one resource, one view, and his views are offset by numerous other retired judges, including some from NY, who counter his Fox Network commentaries. Sure, Turley knows more than I do about law. Yet he doesn't get to make decisions for me, nor does what he says about Trump's case the final word. It's not up to him, you, or me.

I form my views from numerous sources. Do you Rainsol?

The final words are from juries of Trump's peers in at least four states where he is awaiting trials and then the inevitable appeals process.

 

[dmallord]

I understand the law dipshit.

What you don’t seem to understand is that the charges are from 8 years ago and have long outrun the statute of limitations. The criminal charges are misdemeanors under NY state law.

Now, after your cut and paste tirade which points out only a portion of the trial, it failed to point out what the underlying federal charges the defendant was charged with. You understand that the federal charges carry with it federal guidelines.

First, under the sixth amendment the defendant is entitled and afforded by constitutional law to know what those charges are during the trial not after closing arguments by the prosecution. It is the duty of the prosecutor to present all charges, evidence and witness testimony to the jury (court) during the trial allowing the defendant to counter the prosecution’s said charges with counter arguments and exculpatory witness testimony. .

Federal crimes are out of the jurisdiction of state courts but since federal statutes were used to support state charges, one such statute alleged campaign finance violations which is a federal statute that FECA refused to charge. It is incumbent on the court to allow expert witness testimony without restrictions placed upon that witness. Merchan didn’t do that. The detailed explanation of the law as it related to the defendant was deemed inadmissible by the judge. Reversible error number one.

Restricting exculpatory witness testimony flies in the face of due process which lends credence to petitioning SCOTUS with a cert writ or common writ requesting a stay in sentencing till the state appellate court catches up. I believe using federal statutes also requires unanimity from the jury to convict on federal charges I may be mistaken but I don’t think so. I don’t believe using multiple federal charges like a Chinese dinner menu mixing and matching will stand up to the scrutiny of the higher courts especially to convict on multiple felony counts. imho

I'm glad you closed with 'in my humble opinion.' That's good to acknowledge. It's indicative that other opinions are also out there that take a different view, perhaps just as valid as yours.

Judge Merchan guided the trial using his knowledge of the laws of NY, testimony, and other past precedents. He performed his duties, which he believes are considered legal and within the bounds of NY jurisprudence standards. Absolutely, they will be precedent-setting going forward.

Former Prosecutor JD Vance Jr. spoke about the process he took in pursuing case against Trump's business for fraud. It points to why they didn't charge Trump himself as active President. It also explains how the vague issues of the charges where applied and normally applied in NY cases. See:

 

[icanhelp1]

1. So no worries about overturning the verdict, right?

2. Thanks for breaking up the wall of words.

3. You mad, bruh?

no!

I'm glad you closed with 'in my humble opinion.' That's good to acknowledge. It's indicative that other opinions are also out there that take a different view, perhaps just as valid as yours.

Judge Merchan guided the trial using his knowledge of the laws of NY, testimony, and other past precedents. He performed his duties, which he believes are considered legal and within the bounds of NY jurisprudence standards. Absolutely, they will be precedent-setting going forward.

I know, he got Trump and you’re happy. And when the pendulum swings back, we’ll just saying. Reid never anticipated using the nuclear option would have such devastating consequences later on. This trial of a past president and leading presidential candidate has divided our country even more. You got what you wanted but rest assured it wasn’t justice.

 

[dmallord]

no!

I know, he got Trump and you’re happy. And when the pendulum swings back, we’ll just saying. Reid never anticipated using the nuclear option would have such devastating consequences later on. This trial of a past president and leading presidential candidate has divided our country even more. You got what you wanted but rest assured it wasn’t justice.

I'm pleased, thank you, but not happy yet.

You've said you didn't give a rat's ass about him, personally. So I imagine that doesn't bother you as much as the 'legal system violations' that achieved that small NY victory over a guy who committed business fraud in order to kill a sex scandal and advance his opportunity to run for political office.

Ty Cobb, a notable, knowledgable, and former lawyer for Trump, said the outcome was predictable and was not bent out of shape about the outcome. There are appeals, he noted, though he thought the merits of those would not be favorable for Trump.

The appeals hopefully will appease you in the end. If they uphold the lower courts would that make you happy as well?

Three other cases involving Trump and his band of merry men need resolution: DC, Georgia, and Mar-a-Lago. Perhaps when those are resolved, citizens will begin to think differently about the wannabe dictator for a day. Trump trumpets the idea that Biden is prosecuting Trump. Donald's lies are tearing the justice system asunder and sowing division with his bombastic and daily false accusations.

Looking at these cases, it's clear that he should be held accountable. However, true justice, the kind that can only be achieved when Biden wins the Presidential election, is the only way Trump will ever face trial for these offenses. If Trump wins, understandably, he will weigh in and stop whatever he can and threaten to use all means necessary to stifle any remaining cases against him.

 

[PaxNurgle]

It should never have divided the country. Trumps policies were NEVER that popular. Quite the opposite in fact; Which is exactly why he lost his first reelection bid in 2020. People want to see justice done, and equal justice under the law. The fact that a rich and powerful man could get away with crimes that would land any one of us in jail should be alarming to all of us. And when justice proved that this was not the case, we all- conservatives and liberals alike, should have applauded the jury's decision.

 

[subdudeme13]

Not true.

Very true.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

no!

I know, he got Trump and you’re happy. And when the pendulum swings back, we’ll just saying. Reid never anticipated using the nuclear option would have such devastating consequences later on. This trial of a past president and leading presidential candidate has divided our country even more. You got what you wanted but rest assured it wasn’t justice.

So Trump didn’t pay off a porn star to keep her quiet about a sex scandal and then cover it up?

 

[subdudeme13]

The only thing we need to know about Trump is he called our fallen service men suckers and losers. Trump lost me when he said John McCain was not a hero because he got shot down and captured. Trump evaded the draft. Trump is not fit to be President period.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

If Biden really is that sharp, then the shit sandwich of his term is more on him than his handlers. And he would also be liable for past crimes, the corruption and sexual assaults.

There’s no evidence that Joe Biden has committed any crimes. He’s not corrupt. And he hasn’t assaulted anyone.

 

[wizzard426]

It's not that the communists hate trump........

They hate everything about freedom and self determination.

All their lives cowering in fear to the words "accountability" and "responsibility"

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

The evidence won't be presented in court because he's too far gone for a trial. Regardless of guilt, the voters will have the last word on the work that has been done in his name.

Claiming that Joe Biden is a corrupt criminal is lie intended to create false equivalence between the President and Donald Trump.

 

[AnalCreampieGiver]

I don't hate him. He's just a loud mouth moron who isn't fit for office

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

They are a former president and a current president. The equivalence ends there. The rest can wait for the shitstorm next year.

Donald Trump is a convicted felon. President Biden is not. Trump was impeached. Biden wasn't. They are nothing alike.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I agree and see mostly the opposite on everything else, which I hope is a moot point when RFK is elected. But that's a longshot. 4 more years of Trump or...whoever replaces Biden.

RFK is even less popular than Donald Trump. As much as conservatives fantasize about it, Biden is not going to be replaced.