Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted
 

I mentioned earlier in this thread that MAGAts were trying to dox the jurors and I think one or more of them could easily be hurt or killed. Same goes for Merchan. These fuckers are crazy.

If Trump or his team had anything to do with rhis info getting out, I imagine there could be some additional charges against him?
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If they can dox them, shouldn’t they have done so during the trial instead of after the verdict?

They didn’t know they hated the jurors until they voted guilty. Wouldn’t want to risk giving them a reason to switch a not guilty vote to guilty by doxxing them early. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
The most fertile ground for appeal, I think, is that jurors were given a choice of "predicate" offenses and were not instructed to agree on which one it was.  See Jury Instructions, starting at page 28.  https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf  Specifically:

Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following unlawful means: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.

The choice stems from the fact that the actual "another crime" is NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152, which is as follows:

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.

The predicates 1, 2, and 3 are unlawful means.  So we have a triple nesting of statutes here.
That could potentially be a legal error that results in remand for a new trial.  It is about the only aspect of the case and jury instructions that wasn't well-settled in NY law, at least as far as I know or can tell from reportage etc.
People are doing a lot of spewing about evidentiary rulings, letting Stormy Daniels and Access Hollywood stuff in, keeping Trump's legal expert out.  I don't think those are going anywhere.

I’m not sure about that attack though. Example:

In Texas, “intoxicated” can mean one of two things. Either a BAC of .08 or more OR loss of normal use of mental or physical…”

Juries can render a guilty verdict even if the particular “type” of intoxication was not agreed upon.

My question is whether the verdict form indicates how each juror voted on each of the three options in the Trump charge. It wouldn’t mean that the verdict wasn’t valid, but it could be error in that if one of those avenues was successfully attacked on appeal, there’s no way for an appellant to demonstrate harm, if that makes sense.
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
1 hour ago, scottsins said:


I’m not sure about that attack though. Example:

In Texas, “intoxicated” can mean one of two things. Either a BAC of .08 or more OR loss of normal use of mental or physical…”

Juries can render a guilty verdict even if the particular “type” of intoxication was not agreed upon.

My question is whether the verdict form indicates how each juror voted on each of the three options in the Trump charge. It wouldn’t mean that the verdict wasn’t valid, but it could be error in that if one of those avenues was successfully attacked on appeal, there’s no way for an appellant to demonstrate harm, if that makes sense.

Yeah, I couldn't find a verdict form anywhere.  And, I don't know that there is anything fundamentally wrong with it, but it is somewhat unusual and not something that has received or survived appellate scrutiny.

One of the things I came to appreciate is that this crime is charged, and charged as a felony, sufficiently often that there seems to be quite a body of appellate decisions on it.

Posted
7 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

I enjoyed reading that piece.  And at the bottom, there's a link to another article about that "Hellcat" dickhead getting a huge fine, so that made me happy too. 

 

7 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

American Journalists are ill equipped to deal with fascism 

 

4 hours ago, Red Five said:

This is rhetorical, but has anyone on team R said anything like “I will not support someone convicted of 34 felonies for President of the United States.”? They don’t have to even endorse Biden. Just say that a convicted felon probably shouldn’t be the leader of the free world.

Danny Westneat, from Seattle, who Gil recommended, has it covered pretty well. He should go national:

The real story of this era isn’t so much about this one flawed, narcissistic figure, as it is the spinelessness of the sycophants along the way.”

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
Posted
8 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

American Journalists are ill equipped to deal with fascism 

I almost think they're favoring it at this point.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
40 minutes ago, immamac said:

Gonna be a weird convention when he's in jail. 

Not really. What's another 25% effort to fellate him and spread deep state conspiracies to the GOP?

  • Like 1
Posted
No, he wanted after the convention.


You sure? I’d heard initially his team requested that date.

Gonna be a weird convention when he's in jail. 


He’s not going to jail for this.
Posted

Even if sentenced to prison, appeals will take a couple years. (He will make sure to drag it out). He still has the other cases. While Cannon will likely torpedo the documents case somehow, the DC one will eventually go to trial. 

Posted
Just now, C-Man said:

 


You sure? I’d heard initially his team requested that date.



He’s not going to jail for this.

 

He will if he fucks around too much like he is untouchable and refuses to do shit that is required from a felony conviction leading up to the sentencing. 

Posted
20 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Even if sentenced to prison, appeals will take a couple years. (He will make sure to drag it out). He still has the other cases. While Cannon will likely torpedo the documents case somehow, the DC one will eventually go to trial. 

It will be a damn shame if she tanks what is to me the second most critical of all of his cases. The fact that it is a very real possibility is beyond words.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
He will if he fucks around too much like he is untouchable and refuses to do shit that is required from a felony conviction leading up to the sentencing. 

Right, but they will file their notice of appeal and post an appeal bond to keep him from being locked up for at least a year or two.
Posted
7 hours ago, DixonHur said:

What's the goal of eliminating the Dept. of the Interior?

Unfettered oil drilling in the National Parks?  Eliminating Indian Affairs?  Both?

 


AZ - the tribes, almost 100% voted Biden 

Posted
57 minutes ago, scottsins said:


Right, but they will file their notice of appeal and post an appeal bond to keep him from being locked up for at least a year or two.

At what point does the crime become significant enough for the appeal to happen while the defendant is behind bars?  What creates the tipping point beyond which the guilty has to sit in prison while appealing?

This whole thing seems nuts.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

At what point does the crime become significant enough for the appeal to happen while the defendant is behind bars?  What creates the tipping point beyond which the guilty has to sit in prison while appealing?

This whole thing seems nuts.

Steve Bannon is still out.

  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 4
Posted

Well yeah, he kept oozing that weird shit on his face all over the prison cafeteria.  It was for everyone else's safety.  At least he got a talk show out of it.  

Serious question for you law dogs (I studied but I'm clearly a dumbass).........SCOTUS can obviously break in his favor.  And lawyers hate the cliche of "slippery slope", but if his contention is that this ruling must be overturned because it inhibits his ability to run for office:

1.  Does that set case precedence for anyone running for federal office?  POTUS, Senate (this is the one I think could come up the most), or even U.S. House?  

2.  Since it overturns a New York STATE ruling, would that mean anybody running for anything outta New York (Congress, State AG, Gracie Mansion, Buffalo ISD Board of Trustee) can just have their conviction thrown out as long as they are actively campaigning?  I know politically, the SCOTOS wouldn't grant any of this down the road, but these people aren't stupid.  They know the groundwork they're laying by even considering this.  

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

At what point does the crime become significant enough for the appeal to happen while the defendant is behind bars?  What creates the tipping point beyond which the guilty has to sit in prison while appealing?

This whole thing seems nuts.

People who are denied bail/detained pretrial generally remain in custody pending appeal.  People who are not generally remain free.  Very generally.  In the federal system, the general rule is that err'body goes to prison after sentencing, but a motion can be made to continue bail conditions pending appeal.

So, it has less to do with the seriousness of the crime than the personal characteristics of the defendant:  likelihood to appear or flea and danger to the community, the usual bail/pretrial detention considerations.  

The federal motion additionally requires that there be a likelihood of success of the appeal.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
55 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Well yeah, he kept oozing that weird shit on his face all over the prison cafeteria.  It was for everyone else's safety.  At least he got a talk show out of it.  

Serious question for you law dogs (I studied but I'm clearly a dumbass).........SCOTUS can obviously break in his favor.  And lawyers hate the cliche of "slippery slope", but if his contention is that this ruling must be overturned because it inhibits his ability to run for office:

1.  Does that set case precedence for anyone running for federal office?  POTUS, Senate (this is the one I think could come up the most), or even U.S. House?  

2.  Since it overturns a New York STATE ruling, would that mean anybody running for anything outta New York (Congress, State AG, Gracie Mansion, Buffalo ISD Board of Trustee) can just have their conviction thrown out as long as they are actively campaigning?  I know politically, the SCOTOS wouldn't grant any of this down the road, but these people aren't stupid.  They know the groundwork they're laying by even considering this.  

That argument is bullshit of the purest ray serene.  There's no right to campaign for office.  The First Amendment yields to facially valid criminal proceedings at every turn.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted

Yeah, we know it's bullshit.  But they're gonna make it anyway.  I'm just curious how you think they're gonna justify it and what kind of precedent it will set down the road at the federal level (and even state level, at least for New York).  

About 35 independent/smaller party tickets appeared on at least 1 state ballot for POTUS in 2020.  Not Libertarian or Jon Anderson or Ross Perot, but just a few hundred to few thousand voters.  35.  Most with running mates.  For a low 6-figure expense, you astro-turf a signature turnout in at least 1 state for POTUS in an already established party.  And then go commit massive crimes and claim you're campaigning for President, which you actually are.  

Unity Party Presidential Candidate Francis Psycho, "Alls I know is I finally get to kill somebody..."  

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, YGIFS said:

Yeah, we know it's bullshit.  But they're gonna make it anyway.  I'm just curious how you think they're gonna justify it and what kind of precedent it will set down the road at the federal level (and even state level, at least for New York).  

About 35 independent/smaller party tickets appeared on at least 1 state ballot for POTUS in 2020.  Not Libertarian or Jon Anderson or Ross Perot, but just a few hundred to few thousand voters.  35.  Most with running mates.  For a low 6-figure expense, you astro-turf a signature turnout in at least 1 state for POTUS in an already established party.  And then go commit massive crimes and claim you're campaigning for President, which you actually are.  

Unity Party Presidential Candidate Francis Psycho, "Alls I know is I finally get to kill somebody..."  

But, in answer to your question.  SCOTUS will only review questions raised in the trial court or validly on appeal in the NY state appellate courts.  

AFAIK, Trump never raised any such issue before the trial court. I suppose there's an argument that it isn't "ripe" until sentencing, so maybe it can be raised for the first time there.  But I don't think the NY state courts are going to do Trump any favors on that ground when/if raised.  Nor do I think SCOTUS would, and then only after NY appeals are exhausted.

As willfully implies, its a sort of "candidate immunity" that is completely without precedent or grounding in anything and as you note would open a can of worms in relation to any criminally corrupt candidate for office.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

SCOTUS will only review questions raised in the trial court or validly on appeal in the NY state appellate courts.  

Adorable.  SCOTUS has ruled on questions raised in trial courts for incidents that never even happened.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
10 hours ago, C-Man said:

He’s not going to jail for this.

 

If you were looking for judicial cover, don’t forget that Trump’s‘s department of Justice gave Michael Cohen a couple of years for following Trump’s instructions.   IOW, we have an example of a first time white collar criminal who did time for the exact same facts in the exact same scheme. The difference is, Michael Cohen pled guilty and did not put the government through the effort and expense of a multi week trial with an essentially nonexistent defense. 

And if he violated the gag order for the 10th time, he needs to get 30 days for that regardless of his time for the charges.  I think that jail time could only be reversed on abuse of discretion.  Trump has provided the court with a huge dump of valid reasons why jail time, in some form, is appropriate.

C-man, I will bet you a C-note Trump gets some jail time, the loser donating to Surly.   

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

If you were looking for judicial cover, don’t forget that Trump’s‘s department of Justice gave Michael Cohen a couple of years for following Trump’s instructions.   IOW, we have an example of a first time white collar criminal who did time for the exact same facts in the exact same scheme. The difference is, Michael Cohen pled guilty and did not put the government through the effort and expense of a multi week trial with an essentially nonexistent defense. 

And if he violated the gag order for the 10th time, he needs to get 30 days for that regardless of his time for the charges.  I think that jail time could only be reversed on abuse of discretion.  Trump has provided the court with a huge dump of valid reasons why jail time, in some form, is appropriate.

C-man, I will bet you a C-note Trump gets some jail time, the loser donating to Surly.   

I think you may be right on jail time.  However, using Cohen, out of the federal system, as an analog would be a grave mistake by Merchan, I think.

Cohen was convicted and sentenced on two other crimes, bank fraud and tax evasion, that are broadly considered more serious and grave offenses than election law violations.  The sentence didn't differentiate among his various crimes. And the federal sentencing scheme is broadly considered more draconian than any state scheme.

Posted
26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As willfully implies, its a sort of "candidate immunity" that is completely without precedent or grounding in anything and as you note would open a can of worms in relation to any criminally corrupt candidate for office

I mean, you're broadly describing most of the trump presidency with that sentence. 

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Cohen was convicted and sentenced on two other crimes, bank fraud and tax evasion, that are broadly considered more serious and grave offenses than election law violations.

That's kind of crazy, considering the broad damage that this election law violation has enabled and fueled. 

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

People who are denied bail/detained pretrial generally remain in custody pending appeal.  People who are not generally remain free.  Very generally.  In the federal system, the general rule is that err'body goes to prison after sentencing, but a motion can be made to continue bail conditions pending appeal.

So, it has less to do with the seriousness of the crime than the personal characteristics of the defendant:  likelihood to appear or flea and danger to the community, the usual bail/pretrial detention considerations.  

The federal motion additionally requires that there be a likelihood of success of the appeal.

Kinda crazy that there's a special rule just for this guy

attachment-flea.thumb.jpg.7c5b8ddf9797498fd6f190ff620dbee4.jpg

 

Edited by tokamak
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted

I am 100% overly cynical, but I think SCOTUS in making its ruling on immunity may take some completely fucked position in that case where it could potentially be argued that it would apply to the NY case.  

 

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, deech said:

I am 100% overly cynical, but I think SCOTUS in making its ruling on immunity may take some completely fucked position in that case where it could potentially be argued that it would apply to the NY case.  

 

 

maybe, but the crime in question happened before Trump was elected.  Not sure how that would logically work.

Posted
4 minutes ago, locodos said:

maybe, but the crime in question happened before Trump was elected.  Not sure how that would logically work.

Easy.  Once elected POTUS, all previous crimes are automatically exonerated.  Unless you're a Democrat.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yeah go ahead and “cut the department of the interior”. He has no clue how anything works. 

Well, the Interior Department is not doing a very good job.  One obvious example -- they've dedicated no funds towards raking the forest floors, which would help curb forest fires.



×
×
  • Create New...