Judge rules Trump’s conviction withstands Supreme Court immunity decision

[Athanasius68]

You are conveniently hiding behind a SC decision that was made up out of thin air.

Obviously, those who defended the likes Roe v wade really have no grounds to complain about court decisions made out of thin air.

But the reality is that the immunity decision is solid.
Congress cannot by statute criminilze constitutional powers of a president.

Merry Christmas.

No precedent for this, nothing in the constitution, just their way of protecting their own political party/president. Woe betide everyone when we get a democrat president who decides to take advantage of this SC farce.

Can't wait for the court to squirm and squeal when some lawyer brings them a case and gives them the opportunity to overturn this immunity decision when it's politically expedient.

 

[WorldWatcher]

However, eliciting testimony from WH aides about how President Trump works as president (ie-- reviewing and being informed of the content of document of which he signs) does describe his official acts.

The testimony was pertaining to how Trump worked at paying off the porn star and how the checks were signed in the Oval Office.

None of that related to official duties of the office.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Translation--- the commission did not agree that the evidence supported further action.

Further translation--- Mr. Trump did nothing illegal.

The FEC has no bearing on New York business fraud crimes.

WW

 

[dcsports]

The FEC doesn’t get to make any judgement on New York business fraud.

WW

They DO get to make decisions on campaign finance.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They DO get to make decisions on campaign finance.

For federal law from a civil perspective? Sure.

The FEC though has no criminal law enforcement powers. They refer cases to the DOJ or the DOJ can run their own investigation and prosecution. Like what they did with Cohen who was charged and convicted of federal campaign fraud.

But the FEC has no bearing on New York criminal business fraud law.

Keep trying to go back to the FEC all you want, they have no bearing jurisdiction over state criminal law.

WW

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

And...
Why assume the half was not interested in 'getting' Trump?

Because there is significant evidence to suggest that the Republican members of the FEC have significant deference to Trump not apparent in their treatment of every other candidate.

GOP commissioners have single-handedly blocked FEC action against Trump 29 times - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Not once has a Republican FEC commissioner voted to approve any investigation or enforcement of the law against Trump.

www.citizensforethics.org

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

They DO get to make decisions on campaign finance.

Sorta. They make preliminary decisions on campaign finance.

 

[element94]

Wait, how can this be? Haven’t many people here claimed the Supreme Court gave Donald Trump (and only Donald Trump) full immunity that covers everything?

Only possible, at least temporarily, when you have billionaires, an entire political party and its supporters, and a billionaires' bought and paid for right wing majority Supreme Court on your law and Constitution breakin' side. It's things like this that have me still predicting (eventually) Nuremberg style trials coming sometime in the early 2030s. Trump, of course, will skate as usual.

 

[NOLA Dude]

Wait, how can this be? Haven’t many people here claimed the Supreme Court gave Donald Trump (and only Donald Trump) full immunity that covers everything?

Their talking points are falling apart, but they are the only ones who don't realize it.

 

[dcsports]

For federal law from a civil perspective? Sure.

The FEC though has no criminal law enforcement powers. They refer cases to the DOJ or the DOJ can run their own investigation and prosecution. Like what they did with Cohen who was charged and convicted of federal campaign fraud.

And the DOJ didn't prosecute any election law either.

But the FEC has no bearing on New York criminal business fraud law.

Keep trying to go back to the FEC all you want, they have no bearing jurisdiction over state criminal law.

WW

Then why did you try to loop them into NY 'criminal business fraud law'?

 

[WorldWatcher]

And the DOJ didn't prosecute any election law either.

Sure they did.

They charged and convicted Cohen.

Then why did you try to loop them into NY 'criminal business fraud law'?

Because Trump's felony convictions were in state court for New York Criminal Business Fraud.

Check Trump's indictment. Was he indicted for Federal campign violations or New York Criminal law? (Hint, the state can't charge federal crimes.)

WW

 

[OpportunityCost]

Sure they did.

They charged and convicted Cohen.



Because Trump's felony convictions were in state court for New York Criminal Business Fraud.

Check Trump's indictment. Was he indicted for Federal campign violations or New York Criminal law? (Hint, the state can't charge federal crimes.)

WW

Hint: There is then no underlying federal crime to extend the statute of limitations and charge this atrocity of a case as a felony.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hint: There is then no underlying federal crime to extend the statute of limitations and charge this atrocity of a case as a felony.

Hint, whether federal crime exist or not has obsolutely NOTHING to do with the States statute of limitations for felony indictments under State criminal law.

The SOL question was already adjudicated prior to trial and under New York law the SOL was not exceeded because of the length of felony SOL's and the fact that SOL does not toll in New York when the individual is outside the state. For example living in Bedminster New Jersy, Washington, and Mar-a-lago Florida.

WW

 

[OpportunityCost]

Hint, whether federal crime exist or not has obsolutely NOTHING to do with the States statute of limitations for felony indictments under State criminal law.

The SOL question was already adjudicated prior to trial and under New York law the SOL was not exceeded because of the length of felony SOL's and the fact that SOL does not toll in New York when the individual is outside the state. For example living in Bedminster New Jersy, Washington, and Mar-a-lago Florida.

WW

Nah, I would argue strenuously that the defendant was easily and visibly available the entire time and not outside NY jurisdiction through subpoena. Bragg assumed way too many sketchy legal theories that won't hunt outside of NY liberal social circles. The law in question pauses the clock for matters of fleeing the jurisdiction anyway, not someone who moves and is available.

(a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which
(i) the defendant was continuously outside this state or (ii) the
whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and continuously
unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence. However, in no
event shall the period of limitation be extended by more than five years
beyond the period otherwise applicable under subdivision two.

 

[Anthony60]

Where does the Constitution say that?

Really? Explained already.

He wasn't President when he was convicted.

Doesn't matter. They should have finished it up before he got reelected.

 

[Anthony60]

Says who?

The Constitution provides the only means for removing a President. This also includes anything that would inhibit him from properly executing his duties, such as a State holding charges over his head until he's done with his term.

I don't believe it's ever happened before. We've never had a sitting and ex-president with such a criminal past.

We have Biden right now.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nah, I would argue strenuously that the defendant was easily and visibly available the entire time and not outside NY jurisdiction through subpoena. Bragg assumed way too many sketchy legal theories that won't hunt outside of NY liberal social circles. The law in question pauses the clock for matters of fleeing the jurisdiction anyway, not someone who moves and is available.

Operative word in your cite, thank you BTW, is OR.

Either condition stops the tolling of SOL.

You just proved what I said and what New York courts have applied.

Thank you.

WW

 

[OpportunityCost]

Operative word in your cite, thank you BTW, is OR.

Either condition stops the tolling of SOL.

You just proved what I said and what New York courts have applied.

Thank you.

WW

Yeah, no. He was pretty regularly in NY as well. The main point is he did not flee from jurisdiction or attempt to hide at any point.

Since there is no underlying crime associated with the misreporting, they are not felonies and have a shorter SoL. They played a number of games with the law in this case, and it weakens the case.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yeah, no. He was pretty regularly in NY as well.

No he wasn't. The vast majority of the time he was either in DC, New Jersey (Bedminster), or Florida (Mar-A-Lago) and all that time didn't cound as part of SOL tolling.

The main point is he did not flee from jurisdiction or attempt to hide at any point.

"Flee" (your emotionally charged word) has nothing to do with it. He was phsycially outside the state, that stopped SOL tolling.

Since there is no underlying crime associated with the misreporting, they are not felonies and have a shorter SoL. They played a number of games with the law in this case, and it weakens the case.

There was an underlying associated crime. Chohen's.

The felony was falsification of business records to hide or aid in another crime. The law does not required or assume that the crime must have been Trump's crime. The election fraud conspiracy by Cohen/Pecker/Trump led to Cohen committing Federal campign fraud, actions for which he was later charged and convicted. The conspiracy between Cohen/Trump/Wesselberg to then launder the money through the Trump busineiss resulte didn the indictment.

The "underlying crime" that Trump was trying to hide was clearly Cohen's.

WW

 

[AZRWinger]

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.

The statute of limitations to charge the Bad Orange Man with falsification of business records had expired so the DA alleged the crimes had been committed to cover up a more serious offense. Bragg's predecessor as DA had looked at the lynch mob theory. But discarded it as unworkable.

Criminal convictions by a jury require a unanimous vote. Enter hanging judge Merchan who issued jury instructions relieving jurors of having to agree upon the underlying serious crime to convict Trump of the cookie cutter charges in the indictment. Indeed, the underlying crime was never specified.

#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.

The state has no purview in Federal campaign law enforcement. The FEC charged with campaign finance law enforcement reviewed the same facts Bragg used, concluding they didn't justify further investigation. But Bragg had a campaign promise to target Trump. Facts and the law don't matter.

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

Cohen who was targeted as Trump's lawyer by the Russian Collusion witchhunt reached a plea deal for offenses unrelated to his work with Trump. At the 11th hour before the deal was submitted to the judge DOJ prosecutors insisted on adding a campaign finance violation. This was a fig leaf to cover the blatant political persecution of the Federal prosecutors.

As shown earlier Federal Campaign finance law is outside the NY state court's jurisdiction. Worse, the jury was allowed to treat Trump as if he had been criminally convicted of Federal campaign finance law despite the fact they lacked jurisdiction and with no requirement for unanimity. Indeed the underlying more serious crime was never specified.

 

[OpportunityCost]

No he wasn't. The vast majority of the time he was either in DC, New Jersey (Bedminster), or Florida (Mar-A-Lago) and all that time didn't cound as part of SOL tolling.



"Flee" (your emotionally charged word) has nothing to do with it. He was phsycially outside the state, that stopped SOL tolling.



There was an underlying associated crime. Chohen's.

The felony was falsification of business records to hide or aid in another crime. The law does not required or assume that the crime must have been Trump's crime. The election fraud conspiracy by Cohen/Pecker/Trump led to Cohen committing Federal campign fraud, actions for which he was later charged and convicted. The conspiracy between Cohen/Trump/Wesselberg to then launder the money through the Trump busineiss resulte didn the indictment.

The "underlying crime" that Trump was trying to hide was clearly Cohen's.

WW

That is the thing, the state never even tried to link the two, except by Cohen's testimony and he had already committed perjury. I think Cohen committed the crime and tried to hide it, which is entirely more plausible---since he was convicted of it already.

 

[Athanasius68]

The FEC has no bearing on New York business fraud crimes.

WW

So I guess we are still looking for fraud...

 

[Athanasius68]

The testimony was pertaining to how Trump worked at paying off the porn star and how the checks were signed in the Oval Office.

None of that related to official duties of the office.

WW

It was pertaining to how he worked as president-- he paid attention to what he was signing.

 

[year2late]

He's above the law.

That is how he has acted ......since he could speak.

 

[countryboy]

He's above the law.

Just like Hunter.