• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge rules Trump’s conviction withstands Supreme Court immunity decision

dcsports said:
That's a pretty bizarre ruling. A very stark contrast to the federal case where even the indictment had to be gutted and re-written (twice) to try to untangle the official acts. But then this judge has made strange rulings one after another.

It's going to be overturned. He should have just declared a mistrial and sent it back to the prosecutor to refile.
Click to expand...
Different kettle of fish
It is a civil, not a criminal case, which IIRC the illegal acts began before he was President
 
Captain Adverse said:
You have a law degree and a license to practice law to go along with your "assessment" of the case?
Click to expand...
Do you have a law degree and a licence to practice law to go along with your "assessment" of the case??
 
Integrityrespec said:
The report explains the several ways in which New York County District Attorney (DANY) Alvin Bragg's prosecution of President Trump suffers from severe legal and procedural defects, including:
  • Bragg's unconstitutional and unprecedented Russian-nesting-doll theory of criminal liability, in which the jury never had to reach unanimity as to each element of the criminal offenses; and
  • Bragg's usurpation of the federal government's exclusive authority to prosecute alleged violations of federal campaign finance laws and the Biden-Harris Administration's refusal to intercede to protect federal interests.
The report also details Judge Merchan's egregious legal rulings before and during the trial that all cut against President Trump's rights, including:
  • Judge Merchan's failure to recuse himself for manifest political bias against President Trump;
  • The unconstitutional gag order he imposed on President Trump during the trial;
  • Judge Merchan's admission of plainly inadmissible, irrelevant, and unfairly prejudicial testimony against President Trump; and
  • Judge Merchan's refusal to permit former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith to testify as to the meaning and complexities of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
judiciary.house.gov

New Report: How Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and Judge Merchan Violated the Constitutional and Legal Rights of President Donald J. Trump

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released an interim staff report titled, "
judiciary.house.gov judiciary.house.gov
Click to expand...
Every point you listed here are the opinions of committee members. In other words, Fox News talking points secretly written by Johnathan Turley and similar Fox News talking head lawyers.
 
Integrityrespec said:
The report explains the several ways in which New York County District Attorney (DANY) Alvin Bragg's prosecution of President Trump suffers from severe legal and procedural defects, including:
  • Bragg's unconstitutional and unprecedented Russian-nesting-doll theory of criminal liability, in which the jury never had to reach unanimity as to each element of the criminal offenses; and
Click to expand...

Let's start with the first two.

#1 This false, the Jury was requried to reach unanimityh as to each charge and element of the criminal offense in the indicatment. The Jury is NOT required to agree as to the motivation for the commission of the illegal acts. Only on the elements of the illegal acts themselves.

Integrityrespec said:
  • Bragg's usurpation of the federal government's exclusive authority to prosecute alleged violations of federal campaign finance laws and the Biden-Harris Administration's refusal to intercede to protect federal interests.
Click to expand...

#2 Bragd did not charge Trump with any element of federal campaign finance law was that is out of the state purview. The DA did indict, upon Grand Jury approval, based on New York Criminal law as to business fraud conducted in furtherance of another crime either to aid or hide that other crime.

Chohen on the other hand WAS charged and convicted in federal court for felony campaign fraud and sentenced to prison. That was the crime the Trump/Pecker/Cohen conspiracy, then later conspiring with high ranking Trump Organization executives to launder the money through the business, that was the federal campaign law violations. It wasn't the New York DA that charged Cohen, it was the DOJ in federal court.

WW
 
One thing is for certain, this needs to be resolved soon. A State can't have a case hanging over a sitting President.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Sure they can. States have jurisdiction over crimes committed in the state.

Maybe we shouldn’t have elected a convicted felon to office.

WW
Click to expand...
Maybe the DOJ should not have been used as a political weapon.
Either way, it has to be resolved, otherwise you have a State that has undue influence over the executive branch.
 
Anthony60 said:
Maybe the DOJ should not have been used as a political weapon.
Either way, it has to be resolved, otherwise you have a State that has undue influence over the executive branch.
Click to expand...

What undo influence?

He’s already convicted. Sentence him and stay confident while he’s in office. No conflict.

WW
 
WorldWatcher said:
What undo influence?

He’s already convicted. Sentence him and stay confident while he’s in office. No conflict.
Click to expand...
Just a for instance... Say NYS lets Trump know, in the deepest of back channels, that even though he wants to deport illegals, they'd sure be pleased as punch if he not only leave NY out of that, but also send aid to them. You know, wink, wink, nod, nod.
 
Anthony60 said:
Just a for instance... Say NYS lets Trump know, in the deepest of back channels, that even though he wants to deport illegals, they'd sure be pleased as punch if he not only leave NY out of that, but also send aid to them. You know, wink, wink, nod, nod.
Click to expand...

Ah the illuminate at work.

WW
 
JANFU said:
Do you have a law degree and a licence to practice law to go along with your "assessment" of the case??
Click to expand...

LOL! Yes, as members should know from the fact that I've mentioned that years ago during my initial membership. I've also served as a Public Defender. In fact, you can check out my "about me" starting with "The only things one needs to know..." which has been posted back when I started Forum membership in 2013.

Now with all due respect...Piss Off! :coffee:
 
Last edited:
Anthony60 said:
Ah, the lib playbook...
Click to expand...


I didn't realize asking for data to support an assertion was "liberal" - you sure that's the position you want to take? Conservatives don't like to see evidence?
 
Anthony60 said:
Just a for instance... Say NYS lets Trump know, in the deepest of back channels, that even though he wants to deport illegals, they'd sure be pleased as punch if he not only leave NY out of that, but also send aid to them. You know, wink, wink, nod, nod.
Click to expand...


So, completely unhinged fantasy what-ifs? Yes, we should definitely base our judicial system on that.
 
hooligan said:
I didn't realize asking for data to support an assertion was "liberal" - you sure that's the position you want to take? Conservatives don't like to see evidence?
Click to expand...

Of course they don't like to see "evidence", especially when their cult leader is behind the defendants table.

WW
 
Captain Adverse said:
LOL! Yes, as members should know from the fact that I've mentioned that years ago during my initial membership. I've also served as a Public Defender. In fact, you can check out my "about me" starting with "The only things one needs to know..." which has been posted back when I started Forum membership in 2013.

Now with all due respect...Piss Off! :coffee:
Click to expand...
I don't think he/she/them expected that answer. ROFL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom