1. #90901
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://newrepublic.com/post/182184/...-nefarious-lie

    Judge Cannon gives Donald's legal team two weeks to prove there was an FBI plot to assassinate him as they've claimed, without evidence.

    Judge Cannon gives zero fucks how obviously she's working for the defense team.

    There will be no consequences if Donald and his legal team made up a FBI plot to assassinate Donald Trump in an effort to continue delaying his classified records case because if that one goes to trial it's really really bad for him, worse than the hush money case.

    This is a novel new strategy, and I hope defendants across the nation can similarly employ the, "Make unsupported, nonsensical, irrational claims to delay their trial." strategy as Donald has.

    Because like, the FBI also specifically searched Maralago while Donald was not there so it's hard to assassinate a guy if he's not around, yaknow?

    Fuck this bitch, Democrats need to go hard on removing Republican-appointed judges whenever they get the chance.
    The one possible good thing about this is that, should the jury still find Trump guilty despite all her efforts, his supporters are going to have an even harder time trying to justify "the judge was biased against Trump from the start".
    On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

    - H. L. Mencken

  2. #90902
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    The one possible good thing about this is that, should the jury still find Trump guilty despite all her efforts, his supporters are going to have an even harder time trying to justify "the judge was biased against Trump from the start".
    It's never going to trial at this rate so good luck with that.

  3. #90903
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    The one possible good thing about this is that, should the jury still find Trump guilty despite all her efforts, his supporters are going to have an even harder time trying to justify "the judge was biased against Trump from the start".
    It will absolutely not matter in the slightest. These are the same people that still believe the 2020 election was stolen. Not that it's making it to trial at this rate.

  4. #90904
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    41,340
    MMO-C's second-favorite lawyer has some thoughts.



    The video does mention that "not unanimous" bit and why "it was a misdemeanor" is as wrong as it is stupid and uninformed.

  5. #90905
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    81,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    MMO-C's second-favorite lawyer has some thoughts.

    The video does mention that "not unanimous" bit
    Just to paraphrase it for those who won't watch the video (which explains it well) and are allergic to reading actual sources rather than AM Radio;

    The jury had to be unanimous as to guilt. There were multiple potential crimes the falsified records could be considered to have been pursuant to, and the jury members didn't have to unanimously agree on which potential crime(s) were the specific ones Trump intended to commit at the time he falsified business records, just be unanimous that Trump intended to commit one or more of those on that list.

    The reason for that instruction being that it doesn't matter which specific crimes he intended to commit, just that the records were falsified with intent to commit further crimes. The specificity is irrelevant and distracts from the actual question with these charges before the court.


  6. #90906
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    41,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    just be unanimous that Trump intended to commit one or more of those on that list.
    Indeed. Team Trump and willfully ill-infomed cultists are desperate for anything that makes this case look unfair, conveniently skipping over "everyone who testified agreed there was a crime and Trump knew it was a crime" to get to "I don't know how this law works, therefore Trump is innocent".

  7. #90907
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Just to paraphrase it for those who won't watch the video (which explains it well) and are allergic to reading actual sources rather than AM Radio;

    The jury had to be unanimous as to guilt. There were multiple potential crimes the falsified records could be considered to have been pursuant to, and the jury members didn't have to unanimously agree on which potential crime(s) were the specific ones Trump intended to commit at the time he falsified business records, just be unanimous that Trump intended to commit one or more of those on that list.

    The reason for that instruction being that it doesn't matter which specific crimes he intended to commit, just that the records were falsified with intent to commit further crimes. The specificity is irrelevant and distracts from the actual question with these charges before the court.
    I think this bit is even better.
    The Court: Do you are agree, that [unanimity] not ordinarily required?

    Mr. Bove: Certainly. We think it's important under the circumstances of this case and think it's in your Honor's discretion to make clear the record here.

    The Court: What you're asking me to do is change the law, and I'm not going to do that.
    The Judge wasn't biased against Trump and making exceptions for the prosecution. the judge refused to make special exceptions for the defence.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  8. #90908
    https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/03/opini...fin/index.html

    Insight! Insight! Come get your unique insight into Donald Trump that only former members of his press team can provide!

    We know Trump well enough to be able to predict that he will allow his fury over last week’s verdicts to eclipse smart campaign messaging on issues voters care about, such as strengthening the economy, fighting inflation and securing the border.
    Shocking stuff that surely nobody outside of his campaign/administration could have ever predicted!

    It's hilarious because media treat folks like this seriously and like my dudes these two didn't manage to have a single actual insight or revelation in this garbage op-ed that anyone who just followed the news didn't also have. Yes, this is a dig at CNN for continuing to host such garbage, too.

    Former Trump staffers continue to try to sanitize their reputations well after the fact as if they didn't know exactly what they were doing this whole time, and media like CNN seem happy to oblige.

  9. #90909
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/03/opini...fin/index.html

    Insight! Insight! Come get your unique insight into Donald Trump that only former members of his press team can provide!



    Shocking stuff that surely nobody outside of his campaign/administration could have ever predicted!

    It's hilarious because media treat folks like this seriously and like my dudes these two didn't manage to have a single actual insight or revelation in this garbage op-ed that anyone who just followed the news didn't also have. Yes, this is a dig at CNN for continuing to host such garbage, too.

    Former Trump staffers continue to try to sanitize their reputations well after the fact as if they didn't know exactly what they were doing this whole time, and media like CNN seem happy to oblige.
    When former Trump staffers say shit like this, it's they have 2 brain cells and both are fighting for third place.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok


    If you look, you can see the straw man walking a red herring up a slippery slope coming to join this conversation.

  10. #90910
    Can Supreme Court intervene in Trump’s hush money case? Why legal experts are doubtful

    But in order for the Supreme Court to intercede, Trump’s case must first work its way through the New York state appeals process, which could take a considerable amount of time, legal experts said. And after that happens, it’s still doubtful that the high court would elect to step in.

    “It’s very unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court will review this case and, if it does, it will likely be years before it would even have the chance to do so,” Paul Collins, a professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told McClatchy News.

    There are two state appeals courts that Trump must go through before he can have a shot at reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, experts said.

    The Supreme Court “isn’t able to just parachute in and overrule the verdict in the case” before the state appeals process plays out, Ryan Black, a professor of political science at Michigan State University who researches Supreme Court decisions, told McClatchy News.

    First, Trump must file an appeal with the New York State Appellate Division — which he has vowed to do, according to the New York Times.

    Arguments in this first appeal likely would not begin until 2025, and a decision could take until 2026, according to the outlet.

    “If Trump loses at the Appellate Division, he can then make an appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in New York State,” Collins said.

    “It would be extraordinary for the Supreme Court to step in and halt the entire process of a criminal trial and appeals before appeals are even filed,” Stephen Wermiel, a professor of practice of law at American University’s Washington College of Law, told McClatchy News.

    Only after Trump has exhausted his state appeals options, will he be able to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to step in, experts said.

    However, the high court only deals with matters of federal or constitutional law, so Trump’s legal team must make an argument that its case concerns such a law, Wermiel said.

    “For example, they could try to argue that the trial was so unfair as to deny him ‘due process’ under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” Wermiel said, adding, “That seems like a real longshot.”

    Another option would be for his attorneys to contend that the crime that resulted in the 34 felony convictions “was a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act,” Collins said.

    But, crucially, for such constitutional issues to be raised before the Supreme Court, they must have first been brought up during the trial, Lucinda Finley, a professor of law at the University at Buffalo School of Law, told McClatchy News.

    “The contentions that his attorneys have raised during the trial are all matters of state law, such as whether certain evidence should have been admitted, or whether the details of (Stormy) Daniels’ testimony were unduly prejudicial,” Finley said.

    Further complicating matters for Trump is the fact that the Supreme Court takes up only a small number of state criminal cases each session, Collins said.

    “The acceptance rate is less than 1 percent,” Jerry Goldman, a professor emeritus of political science at Northwestern University, told McClatchy News.

    And of the few cases the Supreme Court does take up, most result in the state court conviction being upheld, Collins said.

    “So, the chances of both review and reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court are very slim,” he added.

    ------
    So much for that.

  11. #90911
    Quote Originally Posted by Makabreska View Post
    Do you really think any Trump supporter thinks he is supporting USA decline?
    Do you remember the whole, "I'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat?"

    So the answer is yes, and there's a lot of them.

  12. #90912
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    41,340
    I read an OP ED in some no-name rag this morning which brought up a good point, so naturally, I'll steal it and pretend it's my own idea.

    If you listen to the cult, they're saying things like "this conviction will help Trump". He'll become a martyr. People will see this injustice and help him. They'll give him money, they'll rally to his side and break him out of prison, they'll buy his buildings, etc. etc.

    Interesting premise.

    If that's true, then why are his rabid fanbase upset that he was convicted? Wouldn't they be cheering the verdict? "This is great! Trump got convicted, now he'll be better than ever, which as a Trump supporter is something I want to happen! Therefore, it's a good thing he was convicted!"

    You're not seeing that. Because even they know Trump being convicted is bad.

    You know who else knows this? Trump. Trump has pushed a few of those lines himself, but we all saw him during the trial, we all heard him safely off the stand saying things into every camera in the state. He was adamant that him being convicted was bad, wrong, and not bigly at all.

    "But surely he tanked his case to lose on purpose, and the rest is an act?"

    I'm not giving Trump's lawyers any credit they clearly haven't earned. Besides, as some objectively wrong posters here claim, this was a misdemeanor charge. You don't get martyred over a misdemeanor. Nobody praised Ghandi for his parking tickets.

    And the biggest evidence that Trump being convicted is bad for Trump: Cannon. Judge Cannon is fighting the prosecution to what some would call a ridiculous defrocking degree. Just recently, as @Edge- posted, Trump made up the claim that Biden was trying to have him assassinated. Cannon gave him two weeks to prove it, with no penalty if he failed. This is not something you do if you want to see the man convicted. This is something you do if you're desperate to keep the facts out of the courtroom, because the facts will convict him, and you don't want that.

    Team Trump has claimed their polls are going up. They're not. We've seen polls of his loss of support.

    Team Trump claimed they got more money in one day than Biden ever got total. We haven't seen proof of that, and their site crashed.

    Simply put, when a Trump supporter tells you something, but has no evidence to back it...why would you believe them?

    - - - Updated - - -

    GOP members seem to have two things in common these days.

    1) They all think SCOTUS will free Trump from an unjust unConstitutional conviction, and
    2) None of them are lawyers and cannot explain why.

    Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said it would be a “further abuse of power” to incarcerate Trump or sentence him to home confinement.

    “I’m very troubled by what I see in the way the courts have been weaponized,” he said. “It used to be there were some institutions in America, namely the FBI, the Department of Justice and the courts, which were regarded as out of bounds for overt partisan politics, but unfortunately that’s changed, and not for the better.”
    By the way, the House GOP right now is forcing Garland to testify under the threat of contempt. Sorry, you were saying something about weaponizing the courts?

    Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) said it would be “foolish” for the judge to sentence Trump to jail or House arrest.

    “But when you see the conviction and the rules that he instructed the jury with, it’s completely unfair, it’s unconstitutional, and I would put nothing past him at this point,” he said of Merchan.

    Budd said a tough sentence “would only strengthen the resolve of the Americans to support President Trump.”

    Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, had felt certain that Trump would never be convicted by the Manhattan jury and now doesn’t know what to think about the prospect of the likely GOP nominee for president winding up in prison before Election Day.

    “With this process, anything is possible,” he said.

    Tillis said if the judge restricts Trump’s ability to campaign, he would need to show the sentence does not diverge from those of other defendants convicted of the same or similar crimes.

    "Unless they can pretty quickly find examples of where similar cases have resulted in prison time, it just adds more fuel to the fire that it was [District Attorney Alvin] Bragg’s politically motivated decision” to ask for jail time, he said.
    "Your Honor, I can't go to jail because I need to get a job."
    "Denied, you're a criminal, you go to jail."
    "That's politically motivated. I want SCOTUS to free me!"

    Tills said a tough sentence might help Trump politically, because it would further enrage his supporters.

    Now he looks like he truly is being treated in a punitive way by the courts,” he said of time in jail. “It would … really undermine the credibility of the case being brought forward to begin with.”
    "Does he not know how the justice system works?"

    Apparently not, no. But plenty of people do. Actual experts.

    But legal scholars say they don’t expect nation’s highest court to get involved in a state criminal matter, pointing out that Trump’s conviction doesn’t raise any obvious constitutional concerns.

    “The most likely answer is the Supreme Court is going to do nothing,” said Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University whose research focuses on constitutional law.

    “There is no procedure for a case like this to go directly from a state trial court to the federal Supreme Court. There just isn’t,” he said. “So far, at least, there isn’t really an issue of federal law here. You can try to concoct one, but that’s another obstacle to getting it to the Supreme Court at all.

    “At the very least, I think the federal Supreme Court won’t do anything unless and until this gets all the way to the New York state supreme court, or whatever is the highest New York court that would make a decision,” he said.

    Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan who specializes in criminal law and procedure and previously served as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, said there’s no chance of the U.S. Supreme Court stepping in to wipe out Trump’s conviction or to stave off a prison sentence before the election.

    “I see zero chance of the U.S. Supreme Court intervening in Donald Trump’s conviction before the election. He must exhaust his appeals in the New York state court system, which will take more than a year,” she said.

    “Even then, the case would reach the Supreme Court only if there is some issue of federal statutory or constitutional law,” she noted.
    Simply put, there is no sentence that won't be appealed. There is no reason for the judge to give Trump a light sentence just because he wants to run for office again. He'll appeal a one-dollar fine because he doesn't want to be a convicted felon. Trump committed election fraud and falsified records to cover it up. He stole a country. This is not the low end of the penalty system.

  13. #90913
    https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/04/polit...eme/index.html

    The Wisconsin attorney general on Tuesday filed charges against three allies of Donald Trump accused of taking part in the effort to put forth a slate of fake electors and usurp the 2020 presidential election, according to online court records.

    The men – Kenneth Chesebro, a right-wing attorney who helped devise the fake elector plot; Jim Troupis, a former Trump lawyer; and Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign official – are each facing a single forgery charge.

    Wisconsin is the latest state to bring charges against people connected to the former president involved in the broad effort to overturn the presidential election results. State prosecutors in Michigan, Arizona, Nevada and Georgia also have brought charges against a swath of Trump’s allies.

    An attorney for Chesebro declined to comment. CNN has reached out to attorneys for Troupis and Roman.

    Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers issued a one word response to the charges Tuesday: “Good.”

    CNN previously reported that Chesebro was helping investigators in at least four states, including Wisconsin, who were looking into the fake electors scheme. Chesebro’s lawyers had believed that his cooperation would be enough for him to stave off charges.
    Cheesebro keeps coming up in these stories! And keeps being indicted! But given that he's cooperating I'm assuming he's angling for a sweetheart deal. Sucks for everyone else, though.

  14. #90914
    I buy that Trump's arrest energized his more radical followers and pushed some of the ones on the edge into the cult. But yeah its obviously bad that he got found guilty. It would have been a more powerful message to emerge victorious and claim something like "Despite their best efforts they couldnt defeat me". Right now Trump is running on a loser's message. Its cope. Dangerous cope, like how they tried to justify his election loss.

  15. #90915
    https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/04/...various-cases/

    ProPublica has quite a scoop of a story, highlighting how various witnesses and potential witnesses in the long list of lawsuits Donald Trump is facing, suddenly, coincidentally, seem to be getting large payouts from Trump, his companies, and his campaign.

    The benefits have flowed from Trump’s businesses and campaign committees, according to a ProPublica analysis of public disclosures, court records and securities filings. One campaign aide had his average monthly pay double, from $26,000 to $53,500. Another employee got a $2 million severance package barring him from voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement. And one of the campaign’s top officials had her daughter hired onto the campaign staff, where she is now the fourth-highest-paid employee.

    These pay increases and other benefits often came at delicate moments in the legal proceedings against Trump. One aide who was given a plum position on the board of Trump’s social media company, for example, got the seat after he was subpoenaed but before he testified.
    ProPublica isn’t one to publish stuff without having the receipts, and the reporting here seems pretty solid. They’re not directly accusing Trump of witness interference or bribery, but they are noting (accurately) that it all certainly looks pretty damn sketchy.

    But, what’s more interesting, and relevant to Techdirt’s usual beat, is this:

    Trump’s attorney, David Warrington, sent ProPublica a cease-and-desist letter demanding this article not be published. The letter warned that if the outlet and its reporters “continue their reckless campaign of defamation, President Trump will evaluate all legal remedies.”
    So, first of all, Warrington presents himself on his own bio as the “lawyer to the Liberty Movement,” which is pretty fucking rich for someone threatening to sue a news org for doing journalism his client doesn’t like:



    No offense, but if you’re threatening SLAPP suits to silence people doing inconvenient reporting, you’re not a part of any “liberty movement”.

    Of course, Trump has filed a bunch of defamation lawsuits over critical reporting in the past few years, and they’ve not gone well to date. If he followed through on this threat, it seems quite unlikely to succeed in court again, but that’s never been the point.

    Trump appears to be a classic SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) filer. He sues news orgs not because he has a legitimate legal claim, but because he wants to waste time and money for anyone reporting critically on him. This is done to (1) punish those who have done that kind of reporting and (2) to scare off others from doing more such reporting.

    The very first anti-SLAPP laws came about in response to property developers filing bogus SLAPP suits against people protesting development plans. So it’s perhaps not surprising that Trump, who comes from the property development world, has no problem filing SLAPP suit after SLAPP suit.

    But, this is yet another reason why we need a federal anti-SLAPP law and strong anti-SLAPP laws in every state. These laws need to quickly toss such cases out of court and require the plaintiff to pay the legal fees of the defendant. Donald Trump continues to be exhibit A for why such laws are needed.
    Donald's people are threatening more pointless lawsuits because it's terrible that people would report on facts that are inconvenient or unhelpful to Donald.

  16. #90916
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    41,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Donald's people are threatening more pointless lawsuits.
    They're not pointless. They're designed to change the headlines.

    I don't think they'll sue. First of all, everyone here (including Trump supporters) knows the four basic pillars that hold up a defamation case. One is the information must be false. In this case, it isn't, since those monetary payments are apparently on some kind of accessible record. "I think it looks bad" is an opinion and you can't sue for those. Everyone knows this by now, so any attempt to sue will be met with "go for it, knock yourself out". Second, Team Trump lawyers are as incompetent as they are dishonest. Saying "we will sue" can be taken as evidence they won't. If they wanted to sue, they could, you know, just sue. Third, yelling at passing cameras is free. Being sanctioned for a bullshit lawsuit is not. Warrington or whoever knows full well bringing a baseless lawsuit that involves suing the free press for factually correct statements is a non-starter, and putting his back into it will only make it hurt more. And fourth, threatening to sue is a warning shot, but suing and failing is an invitation. With the lawsuit destined to fail, actually suing and losing will increase the negative traffic Team Trump is already getting.

    This is just a court jester, jumping up and down, look at me, look at me! I'm not Trump being sentenced in July!

  17. #90917
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/04/...various-cases/



    Donald's people are threatening more pointless lawsuits because it's terrible that people would report on facts that are inconvenient or unhelpful to Donald.
    Trump doesn't like when people show evidence of witness tampering.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  18. #90918
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    41,340
    TIME Magazine lists Debunking 12 Myths About Trump’s Conviction

    Now, I am going to post the entire thing, and I'm not apologizing. Most of us already know these things are false. However, by posting the entire thing, anyone who continues to claim false things -- without actually citing a significant source explaining why these aren't actually falsehoods -- has by virtue of that announced they are not a sincere, genuine poster. I urge one and all to act accordingly.

    Depending on your perspective, the conviction of Donald Trump on 34 counts in a Manhattan courtroom was either a refreshing affirmation of the rule of law or a miscarriage of justice in a politically motivated prosecution. A jury returned a verdict finding that Trump had caused the falsification of checks, invoices, and ledgers to conceal the payment of $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election, with intent to conceal the violation of campaign finance and tax laws.

    We are all entitled to our own views of the case, of course, but opinion should also be based on facts. Certain myths are creeping into the conversation and distorting the truth about Trump’s conviction. And it’s worth examining some of these myths in order to dispel them.

    Myth: No one knows what Trump was charged with.

    Response: Trump was charged in a 15-page indictment, handed up by a grand jury, with 34 counts of violating New York Penal Law 175-10 in the first degree, which is a felony. A violation in the first degree occurs when a person falsifies business records with an intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime. In addition to the indictment, the Manhattan District Attorney filed a 13-page statement of facts detailing the allegations.

    Myth: Prosecutors stretched the law to convert a misdemeanor into a felony.

    Response: Under New York law, a simple falsification of business records without any intent to commit or conceal another crime is a violation of the statute in the second degree, punishable as a misdemeanor.

    An intent to conceal another crime is an aggravating factor that brings enhanced penalties, such as a felony. This law containing degrees of severity was enacted by the New York legislature, and it is a common way of structuring laws with escalating penalties for more egregious violations. (For example, penalties for federal drug offenses range from misdemeanors for simple possession to lengthy terms of imprisonment for aggravating factors based on quantity or intent to distribute.) The grand jury found probable cause of 34 violations in the first degree, and the trial jury found proof of these crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Now I am going to pause here and tag @tehdang who specifically and directly mentioned this, and would therefore view this topic as important in this fast-moving thread. I have now cited multiple trustworthy sources that objectively point out this is false. I expect no further such claims. Also, "I have you on ignore" is not a valid excuse for ignorance -- this article was not difficult to find, and has multiple parallels. Intentional spread of misinformation is not welcome on these forums.

    Myth: The prosecution didn’t tell Trump what he was charged with until closing argument, a violation of due process.

    Response: While the indictment specified each of the checks, invoices, and ledger entries alleged to have been falsified, it did not specify which crime Trump allegedly concealed. A defendant is entitled to fair notice of the crime with which he is charged so that he can effectively defend himself at trial, but New York law does not require this level of specificity in the charging document. New York case law requires that the indictment allege only a general intent to conceal a crime, not an intent to conceal a specific crime.

    Nonetheless, prosecutors provided this specificity in a prosecution filing in November 2023, five months before his trial began. In that filing, prosecutors disclosed that the crimes they alleged Trump intended to conceal were violating state and federal campaign finance laws and violating state tax laws. The court rejected an additional basis offered by the prosecution, falsifying business records outside the Trump organization.

    Myth: It was improper for a state prosecutor to charge a federal offense.

    Response: The parties litigated this issue months before the trial and the court found that statutes outside of the laws of New York were proper bases to be considered “other crimes.” For example, case law has held that an offense under the New York statute prohibiting possession of a concealed weapon by a person who has been “previously convicted of any crime” may be proved by showing that the person was convicted of a crime in another state.

    New York courts have also upheld the use of federal offenses as the predicate crimes in other cases involving the falsification of business records in the first degree, the very crime charged in Trump’s case.

    Myth: Trump would not have been charged for a mere bookkeeping error if his name were anything other than Donald J. Trump.

    Response: The Manhattan DA’s office has filed charges for falsification of business records 9,794 times since 2015. When announcing the charges, Bragg emphasized the importance of the integrity of business records in Manhattan, the “home to the country’s most significant business market.” He explained: “We cannot allow New York businesses to manipulate their records to cover up criminal conduct.” At the time of Trump’ s indictment, Bragg, had already filed 120 cases alleging violations of 175-10, all of them in the first degree based on the concealment or commission of another crime.

    Myth: There is nothing illegal about paying hush money, and famous people do it all the time.

    Response: Paying hush money itself is not a crime, but it is a crime to falsify business records. And it is a more serious crime to falsify business records with, as in this case, intent to conceal other crimes. These include violations of campaign finance laws, by accepting donations over the legal limit, and violations of tax laws, by inaccurately characterizing the payments as income.

    Myth: The charges were filed after lengthy delay to interfere with Trump’s campaign for president.

    Response: While prosecutors have discretion as to whether and when charges should be filed, there is no evidence that this case was brought to interfere with an election. In fact, the trial court found that the reason for the delay in bringing charges was partly Trump’s own doing.

    In 2018, the case was being investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, which convicted Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, for the same conduct, and referred to Trump in the charging document as “Individual-1.” For reasons unknown, federal prosecutors during the Trump Administration did not bring charges against Trump. Once federal prosecutors closed their investigation, Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance, Jr., started this investigation, but was delayed by Trump’s prolonged challenges to grand jury subpoenas for his financial records, taking his objections all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    When Vance retired and Bragg was elected, Bragg insisted on reviewing the evidence before deciding whether to continue with the case. Ultimately, he decided to go forward. All of these factors contributed to the delay.

    Myth: Justice Juan Merchan was biased because of his $35 financial contribution to Joe Biden and because of his daughter’s work as a democratic political consultant.

    Response: Justice Merchan sought an opinion from the New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, regarding both of these issues, and received an opinion that he need not recuse himself from the case. The finding of Trump’s guilt was made by a jury that Trump’s lawyers helped select.

    Myth: Juan Merchan is a judge on the New York County Supreme Court.

    Response: Merchan’s correct title is “justice,” even though he presides in one of New York’s trial courts, which are called the Supreme Court of each county. The state’s highest court is called, oddly enough, the New York Court of Appeals.

    Myth: Justice Juan Merchan violated Trump’s rights to defend himself by refusing to permit him to call an expert witness.

    Response: In Trump’s defense, he wanted to call Brad Smith, a former member of the Federal Election Commission, as an expert witness on federal election law. Expert witnesses are permitted to testify in trials to assist the jury in understanding facts about matters beyond ordinary understanding. Matters of law, in contrast, are for the judge to provide.

    Justice Merchan did not prohibit Smith from testifying, but when he ruled that he could testify only about facts, and not law, Trump’s team decided not to call him as a witness. Contrary to this myth, Justice Merchan would have erred if he had permitted Trump to call an expert witness to testify about the law.

    Myth: Justice Merchan violated Trump’s First Amendment rights to free speech and to testify in his own defense by imposing a gag order in the case.

    Response: The gag order entered by Justice Merchan and upheld by the five-judge appeals division did not prevent Trump from testifying in his own defense, a right Merchan expressly explained to Trump in open court during the trial. Trump had every right to do so, and chose to instead exercise his right to remain silent at trial.

    The gag order restricted the defense from making statements outside of court that targeted witnesses, jurors, staff and family members of the court and prosecution team, though not Justice Merchan or Bragg himself. The court of appeals found that the order properly protected witnesses and the fair administration of justice.

    Myth: The U.S. Supreme Court may intervene and overturn Trump’s conviction before the his sentencing on July 11, which is four days before the GOP convention.

    Response: Trump may appeal his conviction after he is sentenced on July 11. The case could not go before the U.S. Supreme Court until he exhausts all of his appeals in the New York state court system, which likely will take more than a year. Then, Trump could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case, but only for alleged errors applied to federal statutes or the U.S. Constitution, such as the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
    "Before the his sentencing?"

    I just cut and paste, dude. A small organization like TIME Magazine probably can't afford proofreaders.

    So there you go. The article itself has tons of links that further clarify, but TIME Magazine doesn't make shit up for clicks. Anyone confronting these twelve issues and claiming they are, in fact, true, had better bring a larger, more trustworthy source.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Our Ruling

    Trump said with respect to Hillary Clinton, "I didn’t say, ‘Lock her up."

    Video of Trump speaking multiple times shows that he is ridiculously rewriting the past. "Lock her up" was a familiar rallying cry during Trump’s 2016 campaign, and resurfaced in 2020. Yes many of the chants came from his supporters, but he sometimes chimed in as well.

    Trump made comments such as "for what she’s done, they should lock her up." In other speeches, Trump said that Clinton has to or should "go to jail."

    We rate this Pants on Fire!

  19. #90919
    https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/04/polit...eme/index.html

    3 more Trump staffers indicted for the Wisconsin fake electors scheme. Cheesebro again, Jim Troupis a former Trump lawyer, guarantee he loses his law license if he hasn't already, and Michael Roman a Trump campaign official have all been charged with 1 count of forgery.

  20. #90920
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    TIME Magazine lists Debunking 12 Myths About Trump’s Conviction

    Now, I am going to post the entire thing, and I'm not apologizing. Most of us already know these things are false. However, by posting the entire thing, anyone who continues to claim false things -- without actually citing a significant source explaining why these aren't actually falsehoods -- has by virtue of that announced they are not a sincere, genuine poster. I urge one and all to act accordingly.



    Now I am going to pause here and tag @tehdang who specifically and directly mentioned this, and would therefore view this topic as important in this fast-moving thread. I have now cited multiple trustworthy sources that objectively point out this is false. I expect no further such claims. Also, "I have you on ignore" is not a valid excuse for ignorance -- this article was not difficult to find, and has multiple parallels. Intentional spread of misinformation is not welcome on these forums.



    "Before the his sentencing?"

    I just cut and paste, dude. A small organization like TIME Magazine probably can't afford proofreaders.

    So there you go. The article itself has tons of links that further clarify, but TIME Magazine doesn't make shit up for clicks. Anyone confronting these twelve issues and claiming they are, in fact, true, had better bring a larger, more trustworthy source.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Our Ruling
    If pants actually caught on fire if someone was lying, Trump wouldn't have any legs anymore. I am pretty sure as much as he lies that he wouldn't even have any extremities at all.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •