RayR
2 years ago

Trump was just a little careless... 😟

DrafterX wrote:



Yup.
Alan Dershowitz said "I'm going to predict that the first thing Trump does is fire his lawyers, which he should have done before the trial rather than after the trial,"
View All Posts by User
ZRX1200
2 years ago
You don’t need a conspiracy where you have a confluence of ideals and a lack of morals.
View All Posts by User
Abrignac
2 years ago
Worst part about is as far as Trump is concerned his lawyers didn’t challenge most if not all of the appealable issues. In failing to address them at trial, per Deshowitz, he’ll be unable to raise them on appeal.

Get ready for an attempt to argue ineffective council. (Thanks for the heads up Robert.)
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
2 years ago

Trump guilty in NY trial: Can he still run for president or vote as a convicted felon?



In a landmark moment in U.S. political and legal history, a Manhattan jury on May 30 found former President Donald Trump guilty of multiple felony counts.

A unanimous jury in the New York case concluded that Trump was guilty of all 34 counts of falsifying business records in an alleged scheme to cover up a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.

Trump, who was president from January 2017 to January 2021, has been the presumptive Republican nominee against the incumbent Democratic president, Joe Biden. It’s unclear how the 34-count conviction could affect the presidential race. But, no matter what happens, Trump is still allowed to run for president.

Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial, will sentence Trump July 11. This is four days before the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, where Trump is slated to be formally nominated as the party’s presidential candidate.

The Manhattan case is the first of four Trump trials. Because of legal delays in two federal cases on documents and election interference, and a Georgia election interference case, it may end up being the only trial to reach a jury verdict before November’s election. Trump is expected to appeal his conviction.

The 12-person jury deliberated for about 10 hours over two days.

In brief remarks at the courthouse following the verdict, Trump repeated his view that the process was "rigged" and promised to "fight to the end." He has regularly described the prosecution as politically motivated and complained that it was being held in New York City, a jurisdiction that overwhelmingly voted for Biden in 2020.

Here’s what we know about what could happen next.

Can Trump still run for president after his conviction?

Yes. The U.S. Constitution upholds the principle that voters decide who should represent them, and its qualifications are limited to natural-born citizenship, age (35 by Inauguration Day) and U.S. residency (14 years).

Convicted felons have run for president in the past. Lyndon LaRouche was convicted in 1988 of tax and mail fraud conspiracy and ran for president multiple times from 1976 to 2004. Eugene Debs was convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for an anti-war speech, then ran for president under the Socialist Party banner from a federal prison in Alabama in 1920.

Will Trump lose his voting rights?

That’s unlikely.

Trump is a registered voter in Palm Beach County, Florida. The Florida Department of State website states that "a felony conviction in another state makes a person ineligible to vote in Florida only if the conviction would make the person ineligible to vote in the state where the person was convicted."

New York law passed a law in 2021 that restores voting rights for people convicted of felonies upon their release from prison. Voters don’t lose their right to vote unless they are in prison serving a sentence for a felony conviction. People whose prison sentences are stayed pending appeal keep their voting rights.

What factors could influence the sentence Merchan imposes?

For a typical defendant, sentencing would hinge on such factors as prior criminal record, age, overall character, the seriousness of the charges, any expressions of remorse and whether the defendant had demonstrated respect for the court process, said Matthew J. Galluzzo, a New York attorney.

"In this case, though, there is of course the huge issue that he is the presumptive Republican nominee for president," Galluzzo said. "This makes it especially difficult for the court to impose a sentence that will not be accused of being politically motivated. So, you could see the judge basing his decision at least in part on considerations of the public's reaction."

Legal experts told PolitiFact that the prosecution winning guilty verdicts on all 34 counts without any acquittals likely won’t matter much at sentencing, partly because the falsifying business records charges were so similar.

A wild card is how much Merchan emphasizes Trump’s record of being held in contempt 10 times for violating gag orders, and for any additional comments he makes before sentencing, said Joan Meyer, a former federal and local prosecutor who is now partner at the law firm Thompson Hine LLP.

How flexible is the scheduling of court dates with a verdict now announced?

Because the presidential election continues, "the defense lawyers will undoubtedly ask for an expedited appeal" said Jerry Goldfeder, a New York election law attorney.

Legal experts agreed that Merchan will be open to reasonable scheduling concerns.

"Judges can always adjust their docket if scheduling adjustment requests are reasonable," Meyer said. "Given that Mr. Trump is a presidential candidate, I am sure that accommodations can be made for important events if they conflict with court proceedings."

Is Trump likely to receive prison time?

This is difficult to predict, experts said, and what Merchan might decide is anyone’s guess.

Working in Trump’s favor: He lacks prior convictions and the charges are nonviolent felonies. Working against Trump: He has been held in contempt multiple times for breaching a gag order and hasn’t shown remorse.

"If he had just been silent throughout the trial, I would think there would have been no realistic probability of a jail sentence. But he has said things publicly that I think create the possibility of incarceration," Galluzzo said. "Normally speaking, being contemptuous of court and refusing to accept responsibility will get a defendant a jail sentence after trial. It would require a tremendous amount of backbone for Judge Merchan to do it, and I'm not sure he personally wants to deal with the blowback that would result."

How could an appeal of the guilty verdict play out?

Trump is all but certain to appeal, and that process would likely extend beyond Election Day.

Trump has 30 days to state he intends to appeal in writing. He would have months more to file his actual appeal, said Karen Friedman Agnifilo, a criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor. Once the appeal is filed, it would still take additional months before the appeals court hears oral arguments and, potentially, months more before the court renders a decision.

It would not be unusual for the process to take a year or more, experts said.

If Trump is sentenced to incarceration, would he be imprisoned as his appeal progresses?

It would be within the judge’s power to sentence a defendant to jail and then order his or her incarceration as an appeal is underway. But Merchan is almost certain to "stay," or pause, the sentence’s enforcement until the appeal is complete.

"Any prison sentence would be short, and Mr. Trump would otherwise serve it before his appeal could be completed or decided," Galluzzo said. "So I would not expect him to be incarcerated until he has exhausted his appeals, which could take well over a year."

What are Trump's most fruitful avenues for appeal?

Legal experts said some of Trump’s arguments could be credible for the appeals court.

"I am sure we will see an appeal on every aspect of the case, including Judge Merchan’s decision not to dismiss the indictment, the jury selection process, evidentiary rulings admitting or limiting evidence, and the charge he gave to the jury on the law," said Cheryl G. Bader, an associate clinical law professor at Fordham University.

Bill Otis, former head of the Appellate Division of the U.S. attorney’s office for Virginia’s Eastern District, wrote before the verdict that Trump has a reasonable shot at seeing a guilty verdict overturned.

One argument, Otis wrote, could be that Merchan didn’t instruct the jury that paying hush money to Daniels was not, in itself, a crime. Another argument could focus on the judge’s instruction that jurors needed to unanimously agree on whether the business filings were falsified to further another crime, but that jurors didn’t need to be unanimous on which crime the filings were intended to conceal.

Otis wrote that Bragg "wanted to prosecute Trump for being A Bad Person and did so. But that wasn’t, and of course could not have been, the charge written down in the indictment, nor the one the court of appeals will review."

Still, Galluzzo said, "I really don't think there were many controversial rulings in this case, aside from the gag order decision, which has already been upheld by the appeals courts."

Would Trump still have Secret Service protection if he goes to prison?

The Secret Service, which handles former presidents’ security, has been planning for the possibility of Trump’s incarceration for gag order violations or a postconviction sentence, The New York Times, CBS and ABC have reported.

"For all settings around the world, the U.S. Secret Service studies locations and develops comprehensive and layered protective models that incorporate state of the art technology, protective intelligence and advanced security tactics to safeguard those we protect," Special Agent Joe Routh told PolitiFact before the verdict. "In order to maintain operational security, we do not comment on specific protective operations."

If probation is a part of the sentence, how would that work?

Meyer said that if probation is imposed, Trump would be subject to certain restrictions and would have to report to a probation officer who would monitor his activities and whereabouts during the probationary period.

Could Biden pardon Trump? Could Trump pardon himself?

Because Trump was convicted on state charges, Biden cannot pardon him. The president can pardon only for federal charges, Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt said.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul could pardon Trump, Kalt added, but that likelihood is considered low because she is a Democrat.

Trump couldn’t pardon himself if he regains the presidency for the same reason that Biden can’t. (It’s also unclear whether presidents can pardon themselves for federal crimes, legal experts said.)

What’s the status of the other criminal cases against Trump?

It’s unlikely that the other criminal cases will go to trial before Election Day.

The federal election interference case has been paused because of Trump’s claims of presidential immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on that case by early July.

The Supreme Court’s decision would not affect the New York case because much of the alleged conduct occurred before Trump’s presidency.

The trial for the federal classified documents was set to start in Florida in May. But the judge postponed the date amid pending legal motions and has not rescheduled.

In Georgia, an appeals court agreed May 8 to review a lower court ruling that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis can continue to prosecute Trump. That decision makes it less likely the case will reach trial before November.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/may/31/trump-guilty-NY-trial-can-he-still-run-for/ 
View All Posts by User
rfenst
2 years ago

Worst part about is as far as Trump is concerned his lawyers didn’t challenge most if not all of the appealable issues. In failing to address them at trial, per Deshowitz, he’ll be unable to raise them on appeal.

Get ready for an attempt to argue ineffective council. (Thanks for the heads up Robert.)

Abrignac wrote:


Proving "Ineffective Assistance of Counsel" requires a showing (proof) of it being so significant that it "prevented the jury" from giving Trump a "fair trial"- that might have a different outcome. It is a federal a nd state issue of Due Process (far notice/fair play/right to be heard), which is a constitutional right. Hard to prove here.
View All Posts by User
rfenst
2 years ago
Did Alvin Bragg Campaign on a Promise To Prosecute Trump?
What We Know


Newsweek
Several prominent Republicans have accused Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg of political bias and election interference following the conviction of former President Donald Trump on 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records.

A Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of falsifying records to cover up hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to hide hush money payments to adult film actor Stormy Daniels in the run up to the 2016 presidential election.

Trump's close allies in the Republican party have argued that the charges were politically motivated and designed to hinder his chances in the 2024 presidential election, with the claim that Bragg promised to prosecute Trump during his campaign for DA in 2021 being repeated frequently.

Sen. Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, issued a statement after the verdict: "The district attorney, who campaigned on a promise to prosecute Donald Trump, brought these charges precisely because of who the defendant was rather than because of any specified criminal conduct."

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a staunch Trump supporter, described the verdict as a "shameful day in American history," claiming that the charges were based on dubious testimony and aimed solely at discrediting the leading GOP candidate. "This was a purely political exercise, not a legal one," Johnson said in a statement​​.

Representative Thomas Massie echoed these sentiments, posting on X (formerly Twitter), "Bragg's actions are clearly politically motivated. The American people see this for what it is: an attempt to interfere in the 2024 election"​​.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis accused Bragg of being a leftist prosecutor who manipulated the legal system for political gains, saying: "If the defendant were not Donald Trump, this case would never have been brought.".

Senator Lindsey Graham argued that the trial undermined trust in the justice system, claiming, "A political hack prosecutor manufactured charges in one of the most liberal legal venues in the country."​​

Bragg launched his campaign for the Manhattan DA position in June 2019, two months before outgoing DA Cyrus Vance Jr issued a subpoena for the Trump Organization in order to acquire Trump's tax returns. Proceedings against Trump by Vance began in August 2019, and would continue until the end of his tenure.

During the first half of Bragg's campaign, it was not clear that proceedings against Trump would be able to take place, as Trump had appealed to the Supreme Court for immunity from the subpoena. The Court ruled 7-2 that he was not immune in the Trump v. Vance case in July 2020.

Due to Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court, New York officials did not receive the subpoenaed documents until February 2021, and a criminal investigation was not launched until May, a few months before Bragg's election in November. There were no legal proceedings being taken against Trump in the state when Bragg first started his run for DA.

While campaigning, Bragg said: "I have investigated Trump and his children and held them accountable for their misconduct with the Trump Foundation. I also sued the Trump administration more than 100 times for the travel ban, the separation of children from their families at the border. So I know that work. I know how to follow the facts and hold people in power accountable."

He also said that he would continue with Vance's investigation and hold Trump "accountable by following the facts where they go."

Bragg continued to make frequent reference to his legal experience with the Trump family throughout the campaign.

The Manhattan District Attorney's office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
View All Posts by User
RayR
2 years ago
Meh! All this legal weasel talk gives me a headache. What does any of it matter in a Kangaroo Court Show Trial?


BANANA REPUBLIC: Jury in Merchan’s Kangaroo Court Found Trump Guilty of 34 Felonies – But DID NOT SPECIFY What Crime Trump Committed – NO ONE KNOWS! (VIDEO)

by Jim Hoft May. 31, 2024 8:00 am

The jury in corrupt Judge Juan Merchan’s kangaroo court found President Trump guilty of 34 felonies on Thursday afternoon. Each felony conviction could land President Trump in prison for four years.

Judge Merchan told jurors they did not have to agree on a crime. This is unheard of in US history. The jury only had to agree something bad happened. This, of course, is completely unconstitutional.

This was clearly the greatest travesty of justice in American history.

The jury never explained what crime Trump committed and was not required to explain what crime Trump committed.

Jonathan Turley spoke about this on Thursday following the verdicts.

Jonathan Turley: The instructions had that feel, I called it in a column yesterday of a canned hunt, where you actually shoot game in a cage. But in defense of some of those jurors, they may have not seen any alternative but conviction.

Keep in mind, this judge allowed the government to repeatedly tell them that it was a fact that an election violation occurred and that Trump had ordered it. Judge Mershan stayed absolutely silent during that statement. Over and over again, even though it violated his instruction.

To this day, we won’t know what the jury really decided on the conspiracy. I was in that courtroom listening to 34 guilty verdicts, but they didn’t say what the jury thought had happened. They were unanimous only that some crime, some secondary crime occurred.

Judge Mershan did not require them to reach unanimity on what that crime was. So, it’s going to go on appeal, and the appellate court won’t know any more than we have in terms of knowledge as to was this an election violation, another falsification of documents, a tax violation? That’s just simply not in the record.


Jonathan Turley is right. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” was replaced with “If the ground is wet, you can infer it rained.” This is now precedent in our American legal system.

The country may never recover from these lawfare travesties by the Marxists in power and the federal agencies that support them.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/05/banana-republic-jury-merchans-kangaroo-court-found-trump/ 

View All Posts by User
rfenst
2 years ago

... If the ground is wet, you can infer it rained.” This is now precedent in our American legal system.

RayR wrote:



From New York standard jury instructions:

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

...
Evidence

When you judge the facts, you are to consider only the evidence. The evidence in the case includes:the testimony of the witnesses,the exhibits that were received in evidence, [and] [the stipulation(s) by the parties. (A stipulation is information the parties agree to present to the jury as evidence,w ithout calling a witness to testify.)]Testimony which was stricken from the record or to which an objection was sustained must be disregarded by you. Exhibits that were received in evidence are available, upon your request, for your inspection and consideration.

Evidentiary Inferences

If a circumstantial evidence charge is to be given, the following should be omitted) In evaluating the evidence, you may consider any fact that is proven and any inference which may be drawn from such fact.

To draw an inference means to infer, find, conclude that afact exists or does not exist based upon proof of some other fact
or facts.

For example, you go to bed one night when it is not raining;when you wake up in the morning, you look out your window; you do not see rain, but you see that the street and sidewalk are wet, and that people are wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas. Under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer, conclude, that it had rained. In other words, the fact of it having rained while you were asleep is an inference that might be drawn from the proven facts of the presence of the water on the street and sidewalk, and people in raincoats and carrying umbrellas. An inference must only be drawn from a proven fact or facts and then only if the inference flows naturally, reasonably, and logically from the proven fact or facts, not if it is speculative.

Therefore, in deciding whether to draw an inference, you must look at and consider all the facts in the light of reason, common sense, and experience.




Once again, "you know not about what you speak."

New York has standard criminal jury instructions. They must be used in all cases and deviation is only permitted under unique circumstances specific to that case, which is veryrare.

So, with respect to the "rain complaint" you make, I'd like to see you convince New York's highest state court it was wrong. Best of luck. You will lose unless they rule their very own standard rule is unconstitutional.

And, just to further emphasize, most if not all states have a very similar, sometimes virtually identicle, jury instruction, as do the federal courts.
View All Posts by User
MACS
2 years ago
Anyone that can't see the entire thing was rigged is blind as Ray Charles AND Stevie Wonder combined or just plain stupid.
View All Posts by User
RayR
2 years ago
Never mind me Robert, I know you are mad at me for believing that the jury should judge the facts and the law and not be led around like sheep by some lefty black-robed lawyer.

BTW...are you calling Jonathan Turley a dummy?
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
2 years ago

Anyone that can't see the entire thing was rigged is blind as Ray Charles AND Stevie Wonder combined or just plain stupid.

MACS wrote:




They're stupid.

There's enough threads. You know, I know that they've been shown real live proof over and over and over. We even went through a plandemic with these same people spouting, like Special Ed on Crank Yankers...."He's guilty...yeaaaaa!"...backslapping one another like some tribal fire dance that they're all happy to be a part of...sickening. Even if they followed this case...they STILL believe the guilt. The crime and that's coupled with liars telling lies about him! You can't make up how stupid you have to be to still be Team Biden. The #3 at the DOJ (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/meet-the-former-biden-doj-official-who-jumped-ship-to-prosecute-trump/ar-AA1nxJFt) walked down ladders to handle this case for Pedo Joe, with their handpicked bat**** crazy judge (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/daughter-of-judge-trump-case-biden-harris-work/) with their crooked Soros paid for DA (https://www.allsides.com/blog/misinformation-watch-george-soros-alvin-bragg-connection) who didn't want to take the case until he had to.

No, they really are...stupid.
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
2 years ago
Well at least Biden united the country and saved democracy.
View All Posts by User
Brewha
2 years ago
I blame the whole thing on E. Jean Carroll.
View All Posts by User
RayR
2 years ago
Yes DMV, they are STUPID.

Anyone who is a genuine libertarian or real conservative worth their salt can see the message, the threats to our liberty.
The rest are just STUPID!


The Sicilian Message . . . Meant for Us

By eric -May 31, 2024

Will Trump become even stronger now that he’s been created a “felon” – 34 times! – by a “court” (and jury) that everyone understands was convened to convict him? That is the belief asserted by Devolutionists – the people who believe that this is all a show and part of an elaborate operation to expose the corruption of the system so that it can be un-corrupted.

Of course, such a thing has never before happened in the history of government-gone-bad (which of course is all governments, which are necessarily bad; the difference being a matter of degree only). Once government goes really bad – as the one that controls this country manifestly has – there is but one way to un-corrupt it and that is to rid ourselves of it.

What happened to Trump is not about Trump.

It is about what is going to happen to us – now that the precedent has been set that anyone can be created a “felon” anytime the government decides to create any of us as one. You may recall the book, Three Felonies a Day. The gist of it being that there are so many laws that it is effectively impossible to avoid committing “crimes.” This endows the government with the power to prosecute us for these “crimes” whenever it likes – which amounts to whenever it decides it does not like us. This endows the government with the greatest power there is: The power to make us afraid.

MORE...

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/05/31/the-sicilian-message-meant-for-us/ 

View All Posts by User
Brewha
2 years ago

Well at least Biden united the country and saved democracy.

HockeyDad wrote:



God bless Joe Biden. I only hope the evil E. Gene Carroll doesn't get him too...
View All Posts by User
Abrignac
2 years ago

Proving "Ineffective Assistance of Counsel" requires a showing (proof) of it being so significant that it "prevented the jury" from giving Trump a "fair trial"- that might have a different outcome. It is a federal a nd state issue of Due Process (far notice/fair play/right to be heard), which is a constitutional right. Hard to prove here.

rfenst wrote:



At this point it really doesn’t matter as far as I’m concerned. I’ve said from the beginning that I believe this case is ABSOLUTELY nothing more than a political witch hunt.

In my opinion the only illegal action that Trump MAY have committed was booking non-legal expenses as business expenses. For which under normal circumstances the statute of limitations had expired. The DA then took a perfectly legal act and convinced the jury that the hat happens in many cases, monetary settlements with attached NDA’s, was somehow now a crime. Because absent another crime the expired statute of limitations prevails.

As far as influencing an election is concerned every candidate that runs for any office on the entire planet, including the USA, tries to influence an election every time they open their mouth or approve campaign literature. So to somehow take a perfectly legal act of agreeing to a settlement with an NDA and making that act criminal suggests that moving forward any candidate could face the same circumstances in the future for perfectly legal actions.

Please don’t try to convince me otherwise. It’s a waste of time.

View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
2 years ago

Well at least Biden united the country and saved democracy.

HockeyDad wrote:




Yeah...we'll always have Baltimore.
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
2 years ago

God bless Joe Biden. I only hope the evil E. Gene Carroll doesn't get him too...

Brewha wrote:



She’s too old for Joe.
View All Posts by User
ZRX1200
2 years ago
I think what we’ve learned is, the party of lynching has really missed their glorious publicity hooded days and needed an outlet. Don’t see how anyone can willingly be associated with democrats.
View All Posts by User
Users browsing this topic
Mobile! Terms | Privacy | Contact Us | Help | © 1998-2026, CigarBid.com