• 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

Hmm…



It seems that judge wants to keep the case ‘alive’ without sentencing Trump, which might make appealing it difficult.
No, it seems to me that he is trying to force the Supreme Court's hand. Judge Merchan appears to be very deliberate, not only in preserving his own ruling but also in pushing for a clarification from the Supreme Court regarding the boundaries of immunity. His statements that the actions are "decidedly personal" and "pose no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch" suggest a conscious strategy to prevent the Supreme Court’s decision from being interpreted too broadly.

If the Supreme Court were to explicitly decide to grant a president absolute immunity even for future crimes, it would be an extremely controversial action and likely regarded as a violation of the rule of law and constitutional principles.
 
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:
Was that at all Trump College
 
Merchan is biased

he won't admit he's wrong or failed
 
No, it seems to me that he is trying to force the Supreme Court's hand. Judge Merchan appears to be very deliberate, not only in preserving his own ruling but also in pushing for a clarification from the Supreme Court regarding the boundaries of immunity. His statements that the actions are "decidedly personal" and "pose no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch" suggest a conscious strategy to prevent the Supreme Court’s decision from being interpreted too broadly.

If the Supreme Court were to explicitly decide to grant a president absolute immunity even for future crimes, it would be an extremely controversial action and likely regarded as a violation of the rule of law and constitutional principles.
I think you missed the point. Until he sentences and enters final judgement, he holds the case. He has to give permission for appeals. The appellate process can't really begin until he releases the case.

And he clearly allowed the prosecution to not only use evidence of official acts - but rely heavily on this in making their case. The defense objected heavily, and he knew the issue was pending before SCOTUS. The jury made their finding based on that evidence. You can't 'un-ring' that bell, or say it didn't matter. The federal case had to completely rework the indictment (twice) - and it's still an issue. There's no way that the jury verdict stands.
 
Last edited:
I think you missed the point. Until he sentences and enters final judgement, he holds the case. He has to give permission for appeals. The appellate process can't really begin until he releases the case.

And he clearly allowed the prosecution to not only use evidence of official acts - but rely heavily on this in making their case. The defense objected heavily, and he knew the issue was pending before SCOTUS. The jury made their finding based on that evidence. You can't 'un-ring' that bell, or say it didn't matter. The federal case had to completely rework the indictment (twice) - and it's still an issue. There's no way that the jury verdict stands.

Paying a porn star and then committing business fraud to launder the money are not official acts.

Or maybe you could point us to the section of the Constitution covering porn stars? It would be appreciated.

WW
 
And he clearly allowed the prosecution to not only use evidence of official acts - but rely heavily on this in making their case. The defense objected heavily, and he knew the issue was pending before SCOTUS. The jury made their finding based on that evidence. You can't 'un-ring' that bell, or say it didn't matter. The federal case had to completely rework the indictment (twice) - and it's still an issue. There's no way that the jury verdict stands.

What "evidence of official acts" are you referring to, that was so determinative of the case?

Be specific.
 
What "evidence of official acts" are you referring to, that was so determinative of the case?

Be specific.
lol. Go back to the filings if you like. The defense filed numerous objections, and it's been a point of discussion for the whole trial. Official communications, discussions with office staff, speeches, etc. were all heavily used.
 
Paying a porn star and then committing business fraud to launder the money are not official acts.

Or maybe you could point us to the section of the Constitution covering porn stars? It would be appreciated.

WW
lol. That tired retort has been discussed and debunked repeatedly.
 
lol. Go back to the filings if you like. The defense filed numerous objections, and it's been a point of discussion for the whole trial. Official communications, discussions with office staff, speeches, etc. were all heavily used.

That's not an answer to the question I'm asking.

I know that the defense objected, that's what defenses do. I'm asking you to tell me what specific evidence that you believe was incorrectly admitted was determinative to the fact questions the jury answered?
 
lol. That tired retort has been discussed and debunked repeatedly.

No it hasn’t. Paying a porn star and. Falsifying business records in a private company are in no way official acts of the Office of the President.

Laugh all you want.

The only questionable evidence was Hope Hicks testimony about his unofficial actions because they were in the Oval Office and the defense has attempted to spin that to fit the “official acts” portion of the SCOTUS decision.

WW
 
That's not an answer to the question I'm asking.

I know that the defense objected, that's what defenses do. I'm asking you to tell me what specific evidence that you believe was incorrectly admitted was determinative to the fact questions the jury answered?

They don’t get that the decision came out after the conviction and that the judge now has to weigh it against the mountain of evidence to see if was determinative.

WW
 
"Corrupt" in MAGA is "anyone who tries to hold Trump accountable for his deeds".

Corrupt judge.

That judge is a corrupt POS. It will work itself out and eventually get tossed. The guy is just a hater and is protecting hes daughter who works for democrats and himself because he allowed evidence that clearly should not have been allowed. He's shit, democrats support him because they are the same corrupt scum.
 
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:
Why in hell would I read that
Good ahead and post where you were correct on legal cases
Yet it took a Canadian to show that a Presidential Pardon would qualify as a pardon for a number of State crimes in New York
 
You have a law degree and a license to practice law to go along with your "assessment" of the case?
Do you think claiming to be a lawyer on an anonymous message board is meaningful somehow?
 
That's not an answer to the question I'm asking.

I know that the defense objected, that's what defenses do. I'm asking you to tell me what specific evidence that you believe was incorrectly admitted was determinative to the fact questions the jury answered?
I answered you directly. Maybe read it again?
 
No it hasn’t. Paying a porn star and. Falsifying business records in a private company are in no way official acts of the Office of the President.

Laugh all you want.

The only questionable evidence was Hope Hicks testimony about his unofficial actions because they were in the Oval Office and the defense has attempted to spin that to fit the “official acts” portion of the SCOTUS decision.

WW
It absolutely has been refuted. It's a silly response. We're not talking about 'paying off a porn star' or making business records. Other evidence and testimony presented in the trial, to try to manufacture the felonies, was official acts. Per SCOTUS, such evidence can't be used at all.
 
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.



#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
Oh, the same crime the DoJ declined to charge Trump with...right?
 
Let him try to pardon himself. What will the Supremes do? That's the big question and the future of democracy and our Constitution is in question.
 
It absolutely has been refuted. It's a silly response. We're not talking about 'paying off a porn star' or making business records. Other evidence and testimony presented in the trial, to try to manufacture the felonies, was official acts. Per SCOTUS, such evidence can't be used at all.

What official acts pertain to paying off on stars or conspiring to have your private business launder the payments Mafia style?

WW
 
Back
Top Bottom