╌>

Johnson urges Supreme Court to "step in" on Trump verdict

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  231 comments

By:    Andrew Solender

Johnson urges Supreme Court to "step in" on Trump verdict
"There's a lot of developments yet to come, but I do believe the Supreme Court should step in, obviously, this is totally unprecedented

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T




House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) called for the U.S. Supreme Court to "step in" to overturn the  guilty verdict  against former President Trump in his New York hush money trial.

Why it matters:  It's one of the starkest examples yet of Republicans,  furious about the jury's decision , calling for some form of intervention to protect the ex-president.

  • Trump's legal team has  said they plan to appeal , though they would first have to go through New York appellate courts before reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

What he's saying:  "There's a lot of developments yet to come, but I do believe the Supreme Court should step in, obviously, this is totally unprecedented," Johnson said Friday in an  appearance on Fox and Friends .

  • "I think that the Justices on the court – I know many of them personally – I think they are deeply concerned about that, as we are. So I think they'll set this straight," the Louisiana Republican added.
  • But, Johnson added, "it's going to take a while ... this will be overturned, guys, there's no question about it, it's just going to take some time to do it."


Zoom in:  The comment comes as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is  under fire  from many Democratic lawmakers for a pair of controversies in which flags associated with right-wing movements flew at his homes.

  • Many Democrats have pressed for Alito to recuse himself from Jan. 6-related cases as a result, a step Alito has refused to take.

Zoom out:  Trump's allies are already plotting revenge, with one prospective Trump attorney general candidate telling Axios' Zach Basu and Sophia Cai that GOP prosecutors should go after Democrats in response.














Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

The problem is that the SCOTUS dreads getting involved in anything political, despite the injustice of this "trial."

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

I look forward to watching the SCOTUS rwnj's gobble up their strict constitutionalist puke from years ago upon command ...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1    2 weeks ago

The Court isn't serving the left anymore. Time to destroy it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.2  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

Better to serve the so-called, "Left" than to serve some conservative who can't be reasoned (compromised) with at all!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
Time to destroy it.

The reactionary activists are destroying the Supreme Court.  You must find that gratifying.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.4  bugsy  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
reactionary

Do you even know what this word means?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Gsquared  replied to  bugsy @1.1.4    2 weeks ago
Do you even know what this word means?

Yes, of course I do otherwise I wouldn't use it.  We can take it from your question that it is a new word for you, or, if not, that you have seen it somewhere but don't know what it means.  I can provide you with the definition if you want, or you can look it up for yourself.  Let me know which way you want to go with it.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.6  bugsy  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
es, of course I do otherwise I wouldn't use it. 

So you are now going to look it up because you got called on it.

Much like leftists here have no idea what fascist means, but yet they use it willy nilly.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @1.1.6    2 weeks ago

G2 is an attorney with decades of legal experience.  Basic words are not going to be a problem.  What are your credentials?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Gsquared  replied to  bugsy @1.1.6    2 weeks ago

Why would I need to look it up?  As I already said, I know what it means, otherwise I wouldn't have used it.  I offered to provide you the definition since you apparently don't know what it means, but if you're not interested in learning what it means, or prefer to look it up yourself, that's fine.

Do you even know what the word "fascist" means?  You might want to look it up if you look up "reactionary" to learn what both words mean.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

Elections have consequences 

- Barak Obama 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Gsquared  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.9    2 weeks ago

Yep.  The 2014 election providing the Republicans a Senate majority during the Obama administration followed by the election of Donald Trump led to the degradation of the Supreme Court.

(You're obviously referring to Barack Obama.)

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.11  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

You got that right.  

No personal insult, honest.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Gsquared  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.11    2 weeks ago
You got that right.

I know.  The Republicans have seriously degraded the Supreme Court.

No personal insult, honest.

I will accept your non-sequitur for what it is.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

one persons degradation is another’s person improvement ….. thus the quote

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.12    2 weeks ago

nothing

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Gsquared  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.13    2 weeks ago

No one sane and rational could possibly consider the current Supreme Court to be an improvement over anything, and certainly not an improvement over the Supreme Court as it was before the present right wing majority.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.1.16  Snuffy  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.15    2 weeks ago

Of course that determination would depend on the partisan leaning of the individual. While the current court definitely leans right, is it any more overboard than the Warren Court? That court was heavily left as I recall.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.16    2 weeks ago

I remain amazed that the SCotUS refused to set it clear that no PotUS has total immunity or at least that Trump does not have total immunity.

Instead they sent it to the appeals court which did its job and determined that Trump does NOT have total immunity.   And then instead of accepting the lower court's obvious ruling and allowing Jack Smith to continue, they decide to hear the appeal about total immunity.   They delay the hearing three weeks into the future and we are now (end of May) still waiting for their decision.

Of course a PotUS does not have total immunity.   How this can be anything other than a stalling tactic escapes me.

I think the current SCotUS is intentionally delaying Smith and denying the electorate the knowledge of Trump's guilt or lack thereof in the Jan 6th case before we are to vote.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.18  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.7    2 weeks ago

I second that comment, and suggest that GG's accuser read specifically the part about "Know your enemy" in 'The Art of War' by Sun Tzu.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.19  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.9    2 weeks ago
"Elections have consequences 

.

- Barak Obama"

Yep, just like erections often do.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

For 50 years the ACLU was able to run cases before it to get all kinds of decisions.

Now that it is no longer an activist Court the same people seek to destroy it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.21  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
Better to serve the so-called, "Left" than to serve some conservative who can't be reasoned (compromised) with at all!

Ah yes, John Milton:

"Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven."  (Paradise Lost)

How appropriate.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.22  Ronin2  replied to  devangelical @1.1    2 weeks ago

You are assuming the Democrat jackass judge, Democrat prosecution, and jury for a Democrat controlled bastion of stupidity city were correct.

Show us again where New York has the right to prosecute federal law. 

We can all wait because you will never find it.

So yes, the Supreme Court should overturn it; if the jackass Democrats at the appeals level won't.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.23  Ronin2  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

The only activists are the 3 Democrat appointees.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.24  Ronin2  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

Democrats attempting to stack the Supreme Court and federalize all elections wouldn't have degraded anything./S

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.1.25  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.22    2 weeks ago
Show us again where New York has the right to prosecute federal law. 

Show us where they did? 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.26  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.20    2 weeks ago

The ACLU protected your freedom of speech.  Do you have a problem with that?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.27  Gsquared  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.23    2 weeks ago
The only activists are the 3 Democrat appointees.

What's a "Democrat" appointee?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.28  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.26    2 weeks ago
The ACLU protected your freedom of speech.  Do you have a problem with that?

That organization of the old liberals is long gone. Its creators would no longer recognize what it has become.

To put it mildly as the New York Times has:

An organization that has defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan is split by an internal debate over whether supporting progressive causes is more important.

Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Or to put it more bluntly as Bill Mahar has:

“I attract mostly a liberal  crowd, but liberal is different than woke,” the “Real Time with Bill Maher” host said. “To me, woke, if we want to use that broad term, is something that is not an extension of liberalism.” “It’s very often the opposite of what an old-school liberal like me believes.

Bill Maher is done with ‘woke liberals’ (nypost.com)

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.29  Sparty On  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.15    2 weeks ago

Elections have consequences.

One persons sane is another persons insane.    Funny thing is, I worked at a State Hospital a little in my early years.    Shockingly, few of those folks thought they were insane but most clearly were.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.30  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.21    2 weeks ago

Wow. Wrong takeaway. I don't understand the 'need' MAGAs have for not recognizing context in discussion. It's plainly stupid. When context is provided it's a given that it should be used!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.31  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.28    2 weeks ago

Wow. Bill Maher is being co-opted by MAGAs. This is oh, about the second or third time on NT that I have read MAGAs quoting what they label a "lib." Bill needs to watch MAGA approaching his "Six."

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

So the Speaker of the House is tearing the blindfold off of Madame Justice's face, and telling the so-called "independent" SCOTUS what its decision must be.  Did someone let the kangaroos out of the zoo?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.2    2 weeks ago
House is tearing the blindfold off of Madame Justice's face, and telling the so-called "independent" SCOTUS what its decision must be.

Yeah, imagine a politician telling the Court how to decide a case. Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden would never!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.2.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

It doesn't matter anyway, the decision isn't going to need a psychic to predict what it will be.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.2.2    2 weeks ago
he decision isn't going to need a psychic to predict what it will be.

You kept saying the Trump court would intervene in the election and issue other rulings to help Trump. They didn't.

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 weeks ago
  • Trump's legal team has  said they plan to appeal , though they would first have to go through New York appellate courts before reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

The question is if the NY appellate will drag their feet or not.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2    2 weeks ago

It has to go through there and since they did next to nothing on these atrocious NY trials, I have to believe the entire NY Court system is corrupt.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.1  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    2 weeks ago

Donald is corrupt. Call it what it is!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    2 weeks ago
I have to believe the entire NY Court system is corrupt.

 Not that hard to believe. The Supreme court just unanimously found yesterday that New York elected  officials acting in a partisan manner violated the Constitution.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
 The Supreme court just unanimously found yesterday that New York elected  officials acting in a partisan manner violated the Constitution.  

Great point Sean.

How egregious was the state of New York's violation of the First Amendment?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has repeatedly sided against the NRA in Second Amendment cases, wrote  the court’s opinion  concluding that the state’s actions — if ultimately proven — intruded on the group’s constitutionally protected advocacy. 

Supreme Court revives NRA’s lawsuit alleging that New York violated its First Amendment rights (msn.com)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
Donald is corrupt.

Is that why judge Merchan let the jury decide what the mystery crime was?

In other words, he must have done something wrong.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.5  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.4    2 weeks ago
In other words, he must have done something wrong.

I have no idea what you are writing about. It seems to me that MAGAs get some so-call, 'point' and turn it into a talking point which can't be dislodged from discussion even when corrected or "answered." Well, I dramatically lose interest in so-called, Right-wing talking points which live on as "zombie news."

I genuinely don't know what you are getting at with your comment.

Judge Merchan, knowing who and what (the case) he is dealing with, has ran this trial above board. He has inquired and asked the DA's prosecutors and defense attorneys for their proper input at every stage of the trial. He has responded to witnesses concerns and those questions of the jury regarding the trial. And, still MAGAs find fault. 

Well, you will get nothing more at this point! 

Donald is a corrupting influence on this court. He has been so since before his trial started as it is his MO to try to tear down anybody who questions his false sense of a right to control those who (dare to) enter his sphere of influence unbeckoned.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
2.2  Hallux  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2    2 weeks ago
The question is if the NY appellate will drag their feet or not.

Or will they just keep pace with Aileen Cannon​ ... @!@

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2    2 weeks ago
"The question is if the NY appellate will drag their feet or not."

Taking into consideration that it is an American court, I assume that will depend on whether its makeup is mostly Republican or Democrat. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3  CB    2 weeks ago

If the Supreme Court is heedless and reckless in 'messing' with this case I will become an outspoken activist to see change come to the court! Enough of this cuddling of Donald T. It has been insufferable to watch this man abuse himself and liberals just because some conservatives and MAGAs think he should be the tool they can deploy to beat the 'hell' out of us.

I will turn on the Supreme Court and ask others to do the same.

I have had it up to my eyeballs with Donald running to courts seeking favor from his appointees.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @3    2 weeks ago

So much for the rule of law, huh? 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1    2 weeks ago

That's only when things go their way.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.2  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1    2 weeks ago

Don't start with me, I am not in the mood. :(  The rule of law says: "Cut the Bullshit." At some point, shit or get off the damn toilet and leave the bathroom 'area' better than it was found! The SCOTUS needs to understand when to cut 'bait' and let this clown fish get what he properly deserves. No favoritism!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Gsquared  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
That's only when things go their way.

Case in point:  The 2020 election didn't go Trump's way.  The right wing response:  It was rigged!!@  It was corrupt!!!

Case in point:  The trial didn't go Trump's way.  The right wing response:  It was rigged!!!  It was corrupt!!!

All right wing B.S. propaganda, of course.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.4    2 weeks ago
Case in point:  The 2020 election didn't go Trump's way.  The right wing response:  It was rigged!!@  It was corrupt!!!

Would that be like the 2016 election didn't go Democrats way so they run investigation after investigation into fictitious accusations?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  CB @3    2 weeks ago
f the Supreme Court is heedless and reckless in 'messing' with this case I will become an outspoken activist to see change come to the court!

So you would throw a tantrum.

MAGAs think he should be the tool they can deploy to beat the 'hell' out of us.

Holy foil hat conspiracy theory.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.1  CB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2    2 weeks ago

It won't be a tantrum. But, if it suits your purposes: call it any damn thing you want. I know what I would do and it would involve congress people and the White House. But, that is none of your business, anyway. Just know that I, we, will not sit idly by as Donald and MAGA keep working to abuse the systems of this country . . . and damn liberals to just watch.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

The embarrassment that Republican officeholders are causing to our national stature is unfathomable. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 weeks ago
The embarrassment that Republican officeholders are causing to our national stature is unfathomable.

But but 12 independent people from New York found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  That has never happened before in the history of our judicial system.  Therefore it MUST have been a stolen election.......errrr, improper conviction.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1    2 weeks ago

MAGA is claiming there was no evidence of Trumps crimes.  Such a claim is quite ignorant, but par for the course. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

Can you cite said evidence? Of course, not.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.3  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1    2 weeks ago
12 independent people from New York found

You really don't believe that, do you?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.4  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    2 weeks ago
Trumps crimes.

What was the exact crime that magically brought these expired misdemeanors into felonies?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.4    2 weeks ago
What was the exact crime that magically brought these expired misdemeanors into felonies?

Read the indictment:   

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.6  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.5    2 weeks ago

I did. Maybe you should reread it. The falsifying is a misdemeanor. This part  "intent to commit another crime" never says what that other crime was.The jury was basically told to guess.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  bugsy @4.1.6    2 weeks ago

It doesn't matter how many times you point that out. Pretty much every literate person in the world has admitted the prosecution did not specify the other crime in the indictment . Anyone who can read can see that. Yet here we are. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.8  bugsy  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.7    2 weeks ago

I just don't understand their confusion with this. "Another crime" means absolutely nothing.

This will be the biggest reason why the 34 counts will be overturned.

It was obvious the jury was biased. I wonder if any of them have the balls to step up and tell their story why they made the decision they did. I'm sure if they are asked what the crime they convicted him on, you will get a deer in the headlight stares.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.6    2 weeks ago
Maybe you should reread it.

You are not a professional attorney or judge.   You did not sit through the trial and listen to 22 testimonies.   You did not see the evidence.   You did not hear the arguments of the prosecution or those of the defense.   

But the jury did.   After 6 weeks and all that information they determined Trump was guilty on all counts.

But you think you know better than all the legal professionals who conducted this trial and that your sole opinion is of a higher quality than the unanimous verdict of 12 jurors who have all the trial information.

Regardless, the trial is over.   It is what it is.   This is how our system works.   Trump will appeal.   The appeal process will operate and whatever is determined will stand.   

That is how our legal system works.   You will not always get your way.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.10  bugsy  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.7    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.11  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.9    2 weeks ago
You are not a professional attorney or judge.   You did not sit through the trial and listen to 22 testimonies.   You did not see the evidence.   You did not hear the arguments of the prosecution or those of the defense.   

And neither did you, but yet you insist everything was on the up and up.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.11    2 weeks ago
And neither did you, but yet you insist everything was on the up and up.

No, Bugsy, I have stated the fact that this was a professionally conducted trial by our legal system.    I have noted that the people who know best about the verdict are the judge, jury, and the attorneys.

Not you!   You are pretending that they are wrong.   I am stating that I hold their opinions and expertise at a vastly higher level than I hold yours.

Our legal system does not get every verdict correct.   But a unanimous verdict on all counts by a jury counts far more to me than Bugsy of NT complaining that the trial did not go his way yet being unable to articulate an argument as to why the verdict will be overturned on appeal.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
4.1.13  Gsquared  replied to  bugsy @4.1.8    2 weeks ago
I wonder if any of them have the balls to step up and tell their story

You mean like Trump having the balls to take the witness stand and tell his story.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @4.1.3    2 weeks ago

You really don't believe that, do you?

Trump's own lawyers agreed to them.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.9    2 weeks ago

Yes, until the Judiciary allows the system to be manipulated for partisan purposes.    Normal checks and balances were ignore in the interest of political expediency.    You don’t need a JD behind your name to see that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.15    2 weeks ago

I wonder if there is any Trump supporter capable of acknowledging wrongdoing by Trump.   

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.17  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.16    2 weeks ago

And I wonder if there is a Trump hater that is capable of acknowledging the partisan mess this trial was.

I’ve said it here before.    All I ask for is a fair trial and justice.   Anyone here who believes that justice was served in this trial doesn’t understand justice.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.17    2 weeks ago
And I wonder if there is a Trump hater that is capable of acknowledging the partisan mess this trial was.

The fact that these charges were brought against Trump rather than simply overlooked is a fair argument for partisanship.   Personally, I do not care about private citizen Trump but care deeply about the wrongdoings of PotUS Trump.    But it looks as though legal maneuvers and cooperative judges and justices will successfully delay all the important trials until after the election.

But this trial, regardless of partisan origination, was a trial that dealt with evidence and the rule of law.   Those who insist (ignorantly since they did not experience the details of the trial) that a 6-week trial with 22 witnesses, substantial material evidence, formally conducted with both sides presenting arguments, evidence and witnesses that resulted in a 12-0 verdict of guilty on all 34 counts are showing their own partisan blindness.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.1.19  Snuffy  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.13    2 weeks ago
You mean like Trump having the balls to take the witness stand and tell his story.

As a lawyer with years of experience, how many times have you seen the defendant take the stand? Especially in this case where it really looked as if the prosecution had not proven their case.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.19    2 weeks ago

Defendants usually do not take the stand because they open themselves up to direct scrutiny by the prosecutors.    So Trump not taking the stand is exactly the right move.

But Trump has been whining about being unable to defend himself.   If he had not played that card (repeatedly, and dishonestly) him not taking the stand would not even be a topic.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.21  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.18    2 weeks ago

The mess isn’t the jury.    They did their job.    

The mess lies with the judge and prosecutors.     For example.    Image if the judge had made a donation to Trump in the past or if one of his kids was assisting with the Trump campaign.  The left would be losing their minds.    

I could keep going but doubt it’s worth the time.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.21    2 weeks ago
The mess isn’t the jury.    They did their job.    

I agree.   The jury seemed to take this very seriously.

The mess lies with the judge and prosecutors.    

State, exactly, what the judge did wrong.   What, in actual reality during the course of this trial, was improper procedure by this judge?    You do realize, right, that this judge could have come down hard on Trump for the crap he pulled.   He could have, by all rights, incarcerated him early in the trial yet never did.   

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.23  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.22    2 weeks ago

I already have and you ignored it.    Nothing new there.

I can wait for the appeal to overturn this courts decision.

A decision that will likely blow up in the lefts face this November.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.1.24  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.20    2 weeks ago

Well the question was to Gsquared, not you. As he's a lawyer I asked him that question. I know that defendants usually do not take the stand and I fully understand why Trump should open himself up to testimony. Your reply provided general knowledge that is already known, but I was asking a direct question from an attorney as a reply to a post he made.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.23    2 weeks ago
I already have and you ignored it.

Show what the judge did in terms of actual legal decisions.   All you did was claim he was biased.   Show how his alleged bias affected his performance as a judge.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.24    2 weeks ago
Well the question was to Gsquared, not you.

So what?   Do we need to explain how forums work every single time?   We all can opine on any comment.  

As he's a lawyer I asked him that question. I know that defendants usually do not take the stand and I fully understand why Trump should open himself up to testimony. Your reply provided general knowledge that is already known, but I was asking a direct question from an attorney as a reply to a post he made.

Again, you are complaining that I opined.   My reply does not, in any way, prevent G2 from opining.   

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.1.27  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.26    2 weeks ago

Seems like you're the one who's complaining. Your response was useless as it was general knowledge that is already well known and did nothing to answer the question. Can you respond to any comment? Of course you can. Doesn't mean you should.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
4.1.28  Gsquared  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.19    2 weeks ago

In the type of cases I've tried, which have been civil matters, the defendants have always testified.   In criminal cases it's a fact that defendants almost never testify.  However, that's not really the point as I was responding to the challenge to the jurors to expose themselves to threats and potential violence by coming forward publicly, if, in fact, that is what the comment suggested they do.  

it really looked as if the prosecution had not proven their case

Not in the opinion of many experts criminal lawyers I heard who either attended the trial or reviewed the daily transcripts.  

I knew Trump would never testify no matter how many times he claimed he wanted to.  That was propaganda.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.1.29  Snuffy  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.28    2 weeks ago
In civil matters, which are the type of cases I've tried in front of juries, always.   In criminal cases defendant's almost never testify.

Thanks for the response. I did not connect your reply to the hope that jurors come forward. In today's political climate I would strongly suggest they stay hidden from view. Not sure if I would even tell friends or family that I was on that jury with the potential of some nutjob finding out.

I never thought Trump would testify either, that was his mouth running away as usual.

it really looked as if the prosecution had not proven their case
Not in the opinion of many experts criminal lawyers I heard who either attended the trial or reviewed the daily transcripts.  

We can find expert criminal lawyers who will support the other side as well. Such as 

CNN legal guru says New York Trump prosecutors 'contorted the law,' case was 'unjustified mess' | Fox News

In today's divided world, it's fairly easy to find experts that will say whatever you want them to say. It's a shame but that's what today's world is.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.30  CB  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.20    2 weeks ago
But Trump has been whining about being unable to defend himself.

There is this SUPER-SIZED ELEPHANT in the room that Trump supporters are ignoring or at the least keeping silent (about): 

Donald has exposed himself to courts. 

Donald has insisted on having the 'best' lawyers that he can afford. 

Donald is famous for his insistence on a 'fight.' 

Donald tells his supporters every day he is 'fighting for them.'  And, 

then: Allen Weisselberg, Michael Cohen, and Donald Trump are spotlighted in this case for which only 'two' can come before the court and its jury to condemn, clear, or aid Donald's case. . . and Donald balks and does not DEFEND himself.

What's wrong with this picture? 

Sure the law says he did not have to 'do it' - but, wisdom dictates that he ought to tell the truth; to plead his 'case.'

Donald could not be a stand up guy for himself. The implication (unspokenly) speaks volumes. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
4.1.31  Gsquared  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.29    2 weeks ago
I would strongly suggest they stay hidden from view. 

No question about it.  I would be very surprised if any of them came forward, and I'm sure the court and any security experts that may have spoken with them have advised them not to go public.

it's fairly easy to find experts that will say whatever you want them to say

Our experts always tell the truth!  It's the other sides' experts who are, of course, the whores, although we usually refer to them as "the defense expert witness" since we're trying to be genteel in our courtroom presentation.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.32  CB  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.29    2 weeks ago
I never thought Trump would testify either, that was his mouth running away as usual.

And, if I may, that is one of the many problems with a candidate for the highest office in the land! He does not tell the truth. He deliberately and repeatedly (Donald said in a day after being found guilty speech that he wanted to take the stand and testify, thereabouts) lies to people to whom he wants to persuade he is a man of integrity. Lying, and doing so everyday about nearly anything, is not going to instill trust in Donald. In truth, it is a clear SIGNAL of an individual for which warning 'lights and bells' should be sounding. . . as his reputation follows him everywhere he goes.

Donald simply is not a truth-teller. He is a gross liar. Tell it like it is.

We don't reward those we brand liars the presidency of the United States. Reason: A lack of honesty.

Finally, something is wrong with Donald. It's time to talk about this 'elephant' in the room. The man is seriously depraved and I am not being partisan. Nobody relishes in creating alternative reality for the real world and insisting others join him in it the way Donald does.

This is a sickness. And our national health is being altered by him/it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.33  CB  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.31    2 weeks ago

"The whores" - want to get paid. They don't care one way or the other about outcomes: the work is the thing. It's grifting. It's power. It's the venue. It's the 'return.'

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
4.1.34  Gsquared  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.29    2 weeks ago

Sorry, I edited my comment slightly in the first 10 minutes to try to make it read better.  I didn't know you had already quoted from the original version.  The meaning did not change.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.27    2 weeks ago
Doesn't mean you should.

You continue to complain that I responded to your comment.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  CB @4.1.30    2 weeks ago

The problem is that Trump was guilty so that is another very good reason to not testify.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.37  CB  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.36    2 weeks ago

Agreed. The 'thing' speaks about itself! ;)  And, if we can figure it out. . . so can others up to and touching juries (who keep the 'quiet thought' to themselves where it belongs). 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.1.38  Snuffy  replied to  CB @4.1.32    2 weeks ago
We don't reward those we brand liars the presidency of the United States. Reason: A lack of honesty.

Yet you're incredibly one-sided about it. Does Trump lie, exaggerate, misdirect and make things all about him? Yes he does. Yet so does Biden. And before you go into Trump does it more, Biden is not held to the same accountability as Trump is. The sad thing is that all politicians lie. Most are just better at how they sound when they do.

Reminds me of an old joke. How do you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4.1.39  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.5    2 weeks ago

Screw your indictment.

Show us where it states anywhere that New York has the right to prosecute Federal Law.

Since the precedent has been set I am sure Democrats/leftists won't mind it Texas and Florida start prosecuting immigration laws and depart any illegal immigrants that cross their borders.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.40  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.39    2 weeks ago

Since the precedent has been set I am sure Democrats/leftists won't mind it Texas and Florida start prosecuting immigration laws and depart any illegal immigrants that cross their borders.

If they are in violation of the law, deport them. What's the problem?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.41  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.39    2 weeks ago
Screw your indictment.

So you want to just ignore reality. That is what we continually see nowadays from Trump supporters.

Show us where it states anywhere that New York has the right to prosecute Federal Law.

Is this your little fantasy ... that New York has prosecuted federal law rather than New York law?    See, if you read the indictment you would see that the law in question is Penal Law §175.10:

SECTION 175.10

Falsifying business records in the first degree

Penal (PEN) CHAPTER 40, PART 3, TITLE K, ARTICLE 175

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.    Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

Now you are going to yet again ask what is the other crime.   No matter how many times answered Trump supporters keep asking.   You guys are running in circles.   Get a grip.

The other crime was the illegal campaign contribution made by Cohen.   Note in the above language the phrase " or conceal the commission thereof ".

Finally, use some common sense.   You are trying to claim that this case was invalid on legal grounds.   It is extremely unlikely that a judge and DA would ensue an historical case like this if the fundamentals were not grounded in law.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.42  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.41    2 weeks ago
No matter how many times answered Trump supporters keep asking.

Because you gave countless wrong answers.

e other crime was the illegal campaign contribution made by Cohen

No it wasn't.  

It sums up the discourse on the topic perfectly.  The people most rabidly defending this verdict and pretending its all business as usual don't even understand the allegations. 

 is extremely unlikely that a judge and DA would ensue an historical case like this if the fundamentals were not grounded in law.

How can anyone respond with anything but laughter to this?

By all means, find any other prosecution in New york, or any other state, that relied on a similar theory.  New York has never, not once, prosecuted someone for the crime it just prosecuted Trump for. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.42    2 weeks ago
Because you gave countless wrong answers.

More bullshit.   The trial is over.   Deal with it.

No it wasn't.  

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.44  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.43    2 weeks ago

you are wrong. It's not disputable. There's no gray area. You are 100% wrong about a basic element of this case

Even two days after the verdict, and despite dozens of attempts, you can't even correctly explain the crimes Trump allegedly committed.  You should at least understand why that's a huge problem . 

 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.45  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.44    2 weeks ago

"You are wrong" is not an argument.   It is bullshit.   Do better than nuh'uh.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.46  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.45    2 weeks ago
are wrong" is not an argument.   It is bullshit.  

Right, an " argument"  is labeling everything bullshit. Lol.

You certainly didn't make an argument.  All you did was assert a falsehood and then cry bullshit when your ongoing mistake was pointed out. I already corrected you days ago with proof.  By all means, attempt the impossible and try and actually prove your point.

This bears repeating because it underscores what a travesty this case is,.  Even two days after the verdict, and despite dozens of attempts, you can't even correctly explain the crimes Trump allegedly committed.  You should at least understand why that's a huge problem .  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.47  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.45    2 weeks ago

When we can hear the rhetorical fist pounding? Um, yes...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.48  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.46    2 weeks ago

Again, nothing but a verbose nuh'uh.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.49  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.48    2 weeks ago

And all you are doing is deflecting to avoid admitting you can't provide any evidence to support your claim.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.50  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.46    2 weeks ago

The crimes Trump was convicted of have been enumerated unto you and your MAGA bretheran on countless times with links and with endless reputations. Trump committed financial frauds in NY as a part of an overarching criminal conspiracy to cover up an illicit affair with a porn star in violation of NY campaign and election laws and thereby illegally influenced the 2016 Presidential election!

Here Now! Once again for your personal edification...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.51  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @4.1.50    2 weeks ago
es Trump was convicted of have been enumerated unto you and your MAGA bretheran on countless times with links and with endless reputations

bo they haven't. This is just like the endless repeating of hunter biden paid all his taxes despite it being manifestly untrue. Sadly, there's a school of people who think constantly repeating a falsehood magically makes it true. 

nce again for your personal edification...\

Thank you for proving that I am correct.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.52  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.51    2 weeks ago

Everyone reading this knows I am telling the truth and you are either lying or remaining steadfast in maintaining your own ignorance!

The Trump charges and the crimes Trump was charged with and is convicted of commiting have been explained over and over again.

As to your ridiculous derail and totally irrelevant sidebar...

Hunter Biden's back taxes have all been filed, paid and were accepted by the IRS to everyone's satisfaction. If you have any evidence otherwise then I suggest you inform the IRS!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.53  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @4.1.52    2 weeks ago
knows I am telling the truth an

You read you own link and think "the other crime was the illegal campaign contribution made by Cohen. " 

Lol. 

n I suggest you inform the IRS!

Why? I've already explained to you that they let Hunter avoid paying back taxes for 2014 and 2015 by allowing the statute of limitations to expire. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.54  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.53    2 weeks ago

You continue to blow smoke that nobody here believes...

Sound and furious pronouncements are featherweights!

In the end your entire argument boils down to one thing.

original

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.55  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @4.1.54    2 weeks ago

ou continue to blow smoke that nobody here believes..

Your own link literally proves me right. That you can't understand that doesn't reflect on me. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4.1.56  Kavika   replied to  Snuffy @4.1.29    2 weeks ago

I've appeared as an expert witness in a number of cases, Snuffy. Let me assure you that it was the other side's expert witnesses that were suspect, although all I would say went addressed by their attorney about our differing opinion my response would always be, ''I'm sorry but it's my impression that your expert witness doesn't fully understand the intricacies of the situation''.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.57  CB  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.38    2 weeks ago

Nonsense. Donald is unique in his degree and intent of lying. His lies are always, 'Me-Me-Me' advantaged. If it's day or night: Donald is somewhere telling a lie (right now). You can sense it as well as I can. Indeed, the running joke is he is 'gifted' to give us: "Truthful hyperbole." That is, brazen lies.

You nor I, I'd bet even his lawyers can not possibly know when the man is telling the truth, because his intelligence is to orient all his statements to advantage—Donald.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.58  bugsy  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.13    2 weeks ago
You mean like Trump having the balls to take the witness stand and tell his story.

You are [] a lawyer. Would you have every client that said they wanted to testify on their behalf actually do that?

If you do/did, then I'm sure that many of those decisions were a mistake.

Trump's lawyers recommended he not testify. He listened to them, something you leftists say he never does.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.59  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.16    2 weeks ago

We have always acknowledged that Trump has done several things wrong, however, what we disagree with that have been asked over and over and over again, is that the "wrongdoing" does not equal a crime.

You are a Biden supporter. Do you acknowledge that Biden has engaged in wrongdoing?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.60  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.20    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.61  bugsy  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.39    2 weeks ago
I am sure Democrats/leftists won't mind it Texas and Florida start prosecuting immigration laws and depart any illegal immigrants that cross their borders.

Or prosecute Biden for not doing his job of ensuring the border was secured after he gets out of office.

I'm sure our leftist friends would not mind at all, after all, they have set the precedent of prosecuting your rival banana republic style.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.62  bugsy  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.42    2 weeks ago

Notice the only part of the indictment that was not highlighted in blue is the part that says "commit another crime".

That's because no leftist can define what that other crime is, no matter how they try to make shit up.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.63  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.45    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.64  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @4.1.63    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.65  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.59    2 weeks ago
We have always acknowledged that Trump has done several things wrong, ...

Generally, NOT.

... however, what we disagree with that have been asked over and over and over again, is that the "wrongdoing" does not equal a crime.

And I, for one, have stated that wrongdoing does not equal crime.   And I have stated that a crime is determined by a trial.   And now we have concluded a trial by jury and they delivered a unanimous verdict of guilty on all 34 counts.   

So what do we now see?   You, et. al. whining and claiming the trial was bogus ... a sham ... rigged.    What a surprise.

Yes, Biden has engaged in wrongdoing.   You ask that even though I have had no reservation stating the truth.   And you must know that by now.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
4.1.66  Gsquared  replied to  bugsy @4.1.58    2 weeks ago

You challenged the jurors to come forward publicly which would further expose them to threats, harrassment and violence, but your Dear Leader, after frequently claiming he would, refused to testify.  He talked about the case in public constantly, however, when it was time to put up or shut up, he decided he had nothing to say.  His choice.  That's fine, but you questioned whether the jurors "have the balls to step up and tell their story".  Why do you reactionaries want the jurors to expose themselves to intimidation and violence?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.67  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.60    2 weeks ago
Maybe you can tell the lawyer here that.

Which attorney here has stated they would have advised Trump to take the stand?  

Are you making this up?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.68  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.65    2 weeks ago
Generally, NOT.

Generally, yes....over and over again. You just fail to recognize it.

"And I, for one, have stated that wrongdoing does not equal crime."

Very good. As has most of us over and over again.

"nd now we have concluded a trial by jury and they delivered a unanimous verdict of guilty on all 34 counts.   "

Where most sensible legal experts have opined that each one will be overturned.

"You, et. al. whining and claiming the trial was bogus ... a sham ... rigged. "

What would be your response of Biden on trial for falsifying records, charges that have expired years ago, magically reappear as felonies by a DA that campaigned on getting Biden (not the only one), a judge that donated to Trump and other right wing causes, and his daughter raising money on the hopes that Biden gets convicted?

You would be perfectly ok with it, right.

BTW....this scenario could actually come true so be careful of what you wish for.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.69  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.67    2 weeks ago
hich attorney here has stated they would have advised Trump to take the stand?

None that I know of because I never said that.

Are you making this up?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.70  bugsy  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.66    2 weeks ago
You challenged the jurors to come forward

Where did I do that?

Do you actually think any of them are members of NT?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
4.1.71  Gsquared  replied to  bugsy @4.1.70    2 weeks ago
Where did I do that?

See your Comment 4.1.8 as quoted by me above.

Do you actually think any of them are members of NT?

We have many members that are smart enough, fair enough, reasonable enough and patriotic enough that there certainly could be.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.72  bugsy  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.71    2 weeks ago
See your Comment 4.1.8 as quoted by me above.

OK...so I ask again..

Where did I challenge anybody to do anything.

I only opined.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
4.1.73  Gsquared  replied to  bugsy @4.1.72    2 weeks ago

Your comment:

I wonder if any of them have the balls to step up and tell their story why they made the decision they did.

That is not an opinion.  Logically, it is as if you are challenging them to "step up". Otherwise, how could they prove to you if they "have the balls" to face right wing retribution for voting to convict Trump?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.74  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.68    2 weeks ago
What would be your response of Biden on trial for falsifying records, charges that have expired years ago, magically reappear as felonies by a DA that campaigned on getting Biden (not the only one), a judge that donated to Trump and other right wing causes, and his daughter raising money on the hopes that Biden gets convicted? You would be perfectly ok with it, right.

This yet again illustrates how you project a stereotype while ignoring hundreds of comments by me on this very forum which show otherwise.

If person X (and I do not care who that person is) ...

  • is on trial for charges that cannot be tried (illegal charges) then I would be against the trial.   
  • has a judge who donated to person X's political opposite party, that in and of itself is meaningless.
  • has a judge whose daughter works for the political opposition, that in and of itself is meaningless.

Your comments illustrate an individual who cannot even imagine that someone could operate objectively and not care about partisan affiliations.   They suggest a mindset that simply cannot accept that someone would not be aligned with a political party.

Naivety.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.75  bugsy  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.73    2 weeks ago

You believe what you want. I was opining on my thoughts, not challenging anyone.

Not as if any of them are members here and take any advice from any member.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.76  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.74    2 weeks ago

Get a grip...

The judge not only donated to Biden campaign, he also donated to organizations dedicated to getting Trump out of the race. Coincidence? I'm sure you think so.

It would have been much easier if you had just said "I have no problem if the roles were reversed". That would have been at least honest about it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.77  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.76    2 weeks ago

Apparently you do not understand what the phrase "get a grip" means ... or, at least, you do not know when to apply it.

The judge not only donated to Biden campaign, he also donated to organizations dedicated to getting Trump out of the race. Coincidence? I'm sure you think so.

I am confident that the judge wants Biden to be PotUS.   He will almost certainly vote for Biden.   He might even volunteer for his campaign.   Totally irrelevant.   Judges routinely put aside their biases;  it is fundamental to the job.    You apparently cannot conceive of someone having the mental discipline to overcome their biases and engage in a professional manner.   

 "I have no problem if the roles were reversed". That would have been at least honest about it.

I stated my position.   You want me to state a position that is not only hypocritical but does not reflect my views.   

You have offered nothing of value, merely obnoxious commentary.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.78  Sparty On  replied to  bugsy @4.1.76    2 weeks ago

The conflict of interest at play here is clearly egregious and outrageous

Trump will win his appeal if he can manage to find a judge that isn’t just one more of the lefts useful idiots.    That might tough though in these TDS ridden times.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.79  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.78    2 weeks ago
The conflict of interest at play here is clearly egregious and outrageous

State what actions the judge took that were egregious and outrageous.  

The judge could have legally incarcerated Trump.   He gave him all sorts of chances to behave.   You, et. al., are focused on the fact that the judge is a Biden supporter and ignoring his actual actions operating in his profession.

Is it so inconceivable to you that a professional could put aside his/her biases and operate according to the rules and guidelines of his profession?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.80  CB  replied to  bugsy @4.1.76    2 weeks ago
The American Bar Association's    Model Code of Judicial Conduct  prohibits judges from making political contributions to a candidate or a political organization. However, this rule varies from state to state, and some states allow judges to make political donations as long as they do not publicly endorse a candidate or engage in partisan activity.

I   New York , where Judge Merchan presides, judges are allowed to make political donations , [. . .]

but they are prohibited from publicly endorsing a candidate or engaging in partisan activity. The State Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued several opinions on the issue of judges making political contributions, stating that such donations are permissible as long as they do not create an appearance of impropriety.

However, the controversy surrounding Judge Merchan's donations suggests that the appearance of impartiality may be just as important as actual impartiality. As Lubet notes, "The appearance of independence is often as important as the reality, because public confidence in the judiciary depends on the perception of impartiality."

In conclusion, the issue of judges making political donations raises important questions about the appearance of impartiality and the potential impact of political contributions on judicial decision-making. While judges have the right to engage in political activity as citizens, they must also be mindful of the need to maintain public confidence in the judiciary and avoid any appearance of bias or partiality .

As the case of Judge Merchan shows, even small donation s can raise concerns about judicial impartiality and the need for greater transparency and accountability.

Can Judges Donate to Political Campaigns? The Case of Judge Juan Merchan (thepoliticswatcher.com)

"In New York,. . . JUDGES are ALLOWED to make political donations ."

PERIOD.

And $35.00 split into three separate ' containers ' is not a major showing of support by any individual's metric.

Of course it can give anyone who want to cause a so-called, 'dust-up' over such a small donation some fodder. That is all it is: noise.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.81  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @4.1.80    2 weeks ago
"In New York,. . . JUDGES are ALLOWED to make political donations ."

Whoops!

If he didn't violate the rules, why was he cautioned by the e New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct  and why did in it's  2024 annual report, the Commission on Judicial Conduct state contributions violate the rules on prohibited political activity. 

but by all means, show us where someone flying a flag to signal an issue with their neighbors is prohibited..

Because those are your standards, donations by the judge against the party you are sitting in judgment=fine!

relatives flying a flag signaling a dispute with neighbors= such a biased act the judge must be impeached. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.82  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.79    2 weeks ago

My conceptions are meaningless.   As are yours.

Judges get excused or excuse themselves for such things all the time.    The US code of conduct for judges is clear in such matters.

Specifically canon 2 and 2a.

Not really interested in rationalizations why some here think these basic concepts don’t apply here as I have recused myself from numerous decisions over the years as a sitting appeals board member or commissioner for much lesser conflicts of interests.    Potential conflict of interest applied, so one steps aside.

This decision should get overturned on those grounds alone.    And I think it will.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.83  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.82    2 weeks ago
My conceptions are meaningless.

If you cannot show how the judge acted outrageously and egregiously (and clearly you cannot do so) then you have no basis for your claim.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.84  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.81    2 weeks ago

You read the comment at 4.1.80 n " In New York , where Judge Merchan presides, judges are allowed to make political donations. "

First, that is your answer. Receive it.

Second, " The State Committee on Judicial Ethics has i ssued several opinions on the issue of judges making political contributions, stating that such donations are permissible as long as they do not create an appearance of impropriety." — Receive it too.

Third, the caution is about "appearances of impropriety. To 'divine' what that means in practical life is the donated amount should be. . .minimal (NEGLIGIBLE). $35.00 dollars suits the verbiage. MAGAs are complaining, nevertheless. Doing what they can to exploit this miniscule amount. Create a big stink. FAIL!

Finally, you have no link for your referenced material. Come on, now. BUZ Z !


The rest of your comment is a non-sequitar with no bearing on this case.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.85  CB  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.79    2 weeks ago
Is it so inconceivable to you that a professional could put aside his/her biases and operate according to the rules and guidelines of his profession?

MAGAs fail to accept that even republican appointed justices (some by Donald) have ruled against him

The judicial branch is expected to rule independently. It is their professional duty. 

In election cases, Trump-appointed judges rule against Trump and allies, express skepticism

BY  DEBRA CASSENS WEISS

DECEMBER 7, 2020, 12:11 PM CST

President Donald Trump’s campaign and those who support it have faced dozens of losses and skeptical judges, including some judges appointed by Trump.

According to a tally by the Associated Press, the Trump campaign and Trump’s allies have brought about 50 election lawsuits. More than 30 have been rejected or dropped. The only victory was in a case challenging a changed deadline for providing missing identification on certain absentee and mail-in ballots.

Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, wrote about several of the election decisions involving Trump appointees in a post for the Volokh Conspiracy.

Blackman lists these cases involving Trump appointees:

• In a Nov. 27 decision, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Philadelphia rejected a bid to decertify Pennsylvania’s election results by the Trump campaign. The author of the opinion was Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee.

“Charges of unfairness are serious,” Bibas wrote in the nonprecedential opinion. “But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

• In a Dec. 4 decision, the 11th Circuit at Atlanta ruled that it had no jurisdiction in an appeal seeking to decertify election results in Georgia, according to Law & Crime. The ruling left undisturbed a federal judge’s emergency order blocking alteration of Dominion Voting Systems voting machine software in three counties in a suit alleging massive vote fraud in Georgia.

The author of the opinion was a Trump appointee, Judge Andrew Brasher. He said the district judge “worked at a breakneck pace” and was ready to enter an appealable order on the merits after agreeing to the plaintiffs’ request to keep the voting machines intact.

“But the plaintiffs would not take the district court’s ‘yes’ for an answer,” Brasher wrote. “They appealed instead.”

Brasher described the litigation as “last minute” and said it sought “sweeping relief.” But the issue is a narrow question of jurisdiction, and the appeals court did not have jurisdiction to review the judge’s order, he said.

• U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig, a Trump appointee, said a lawsuit seeking  to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s win in Wisconsin had made “a request for pretty remarkable declaratory relief” by asking the judge to “remand” the lawsuit to the state legislature. The Associated Press and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had coverage.

“I have a very, very hard time seeing how this is justiciable in the federal court,” Ludwig said. “The request to remand this case to the legislature almost strikes me as bizarre.”

Ludwig asked why Trump didn’t go directly to the legislature with his request.

Republican-appointed judges have ruled against the Trump campaign and its allies in other suits, including a 3rd Circuit ruling on standing that has been cited in other lawsuits. An 11th Circuit panel that refused to block Georgia vote certification Saturday included two judges on Trump’s short lists for U.S. Supreme Court seats after the deaths of Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The short list judges were Chief Judge William Pryor and Judge Barbara Lagoa. The decision, written by Pryor, said the Georgia voter who sued to stop certification of the Georgia election results did not have standing, and his requests for relief concerning the 2020 election were moot because Georgia had already certified the election results and its slate of presidential electors.

In election cases, Trump-appointed judges rule against Trump and allies, express skepticism (abajournal.com)
 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.86  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.83    2 weeks ago

If you refuse to recognize what has been laid out in front of by you, by numerous people (and clearly you refuse to do so) your input on this matter is meaningless.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.87  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.86    2 weeks ago

A bullshit response.   You offer no specific action by the judge that indicates he treated Trump unfairly.   Without that, your claim of bias is nonsense.   You want to argue to a higher court that the trial was bogus because the judge acted outrageously and egregiously due to partisan bias yet you cannot put forth any evidence of unprofessional actions by this judge.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.88  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.87    2 weeks ago

Nah, my comment remains spot on and with your latest double down comment, yours becomes even more meaningless.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2  CB  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 weeks ago
"I think that the Justices on the court – I know many of them personally – I think they are deeply concerned about that, as we are. So I think they'll set this straight," the Louisiana Republican added.

Presumably, he is referring to the some conservative justices for which he value. Well, we already knew they were 'paling around' he is just making it public. Those backroom 'massages' they give each other (verbally and/or physically) are all fine and dandy as long as they keep treating the law we all help create properly. But, trying to dominate us with bogus ruling and think liberals are going to take it. Hell no!  Time out for all 'yesteryears' bullshit! It can't and it ain't going to be allowed to come back.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Why would the Supreme Court weigh in on a state criminal case ?  They could meddle in it of course, because they can meddle in whatever they want to, but why ? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5    2 weeks ago

Why would the Supreme Court weigh in on a state criminal cas

It does all the time. 


the better question is why a local prosecutor would become the first one in history to use a federal election crime as an element of a state prosecution.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1    2 weeks ago

the better question is why a local prosecutor would become the first one in history to use a federal election crime as an element of a state prosecution.

Why would a prosecutor cite a crime in his prosecution???

You are more worried about that, rather than did a former POTUS commit a crime during the election?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
y would a prosecutor cite a crime in his prosecution???

Do you really not understand the point? 

ather than did a former POTUS commit a crime during the election?

If he did, the subject matter experts who are entrusted with prosecuting people for that crime would have done so.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5    2 weeks ago

Ultimately if it goes that far, they will hear the appeal to overturn. One could use Jack Smith's argument that the high court needs to expedite the review before the election.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2    2 weeks ago
Ultimately if it goes that far, they will hear the appeal to overturn. One could use Jack Smith's argument that the high court needs to expedite the review before the election.

Which they did do when Colorado attempted to remove Trump from their ballot, but refused to do when Trump tried to claim Presidential immunity.  Makes you ask why they would expedite one but not the other.

But as has been pointed out, it has a ways to go before it gets up to Trump's personally selected justices.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2.1    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.2    2 weeks ago
Can't even keep up the pretense for an entire seed.

Can you point to a part that is wrong?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.2.4  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2.1    2 weeks ago
Trump's personally selected justices.

Trump appointed all nine justices?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @5.2.4    2 weeks ago

No.   Now use that information and see if you can understand what Ozzwald meant.   Hint:  Trump appointed three justices.

This is where common sense (as you indicated earlier today) comes into play.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.2.6  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.5    2 weeks ago
No.

Nice of you to recognize this. It is common sense.

If you don't see where sarcasm is, not my problem.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @5.2.6    2 weeks ago

Instead of a thoughtful comment, you issued a lame attempt at a gotcha on Ozzwald's comment.   

Make a comment that adds something to the discussion instead of shooting spitballs at people attempting to engage at an intellectual level. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.8  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @5.2.4    2 weeks ago
Trump appointed all nine justices?

Reading is fundamental.

Where did I say all justices were appointed by Trump?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2.1    2 weeks ago
Makes you ask why they would expedite one but not the other.

I think that is obvious. One had to be decided before the election so people would not lose their right to vote in it and the other simply didn't. There are also reasons for an emergency appeal, but they aren't quite as easy as the Colorado case.


 it has a ways to go before it gets up to Trump's personally selected justices.

They are neither Trump nor Obama justices. They are supposed to be dedicated to the Constitution.

It would have a long way to go as Merchan obviously knew before an appeal could be decided, except in the rare instance the Court were to circumvent the process and take it on emergency appeal.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.2.10  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.5    2 weeks ago

How is that any different that an elected judge from a Democrat bastion of stupidity city like New York- who donated not just to Biden but an anti Republican PAC. The Democrat DA being elected from the same Democrat bastion of stupidity city. And the jury being selected from the same. Not to mention Brandon's #3 from the DOJ quitting so he could join the prosecuting team.

This is where common sense comes into play. 

This was a partisan kangaroo court by the Democrats; who are now screaming foul that the Supreme Court might get involved and overturn their shit show.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.2.11  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2.10    2 weeks ago
who donated not just to Biden but an anti Republican PAC.

So? Republicans donate to anti-Democrat PAC's all the time... You got a problem with that too? Of course not. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2.10    2 weeks ago

Offer something other than whining.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.9    2 weeks ago
I think that is obvious. One had to be decided before the election so people would not lose their right to vote in it and the other simply didn't.

So expediting other Trump criminal claims is not important before the election?  Or is it that decisions that would go against Trump are less important to determine prior to the election than decisions that go for Trump?

They are supposed to be dedicated to the Constitution.

supposed to be

supposed to be

supposed to be

Now show me where the Constitution says that a state can force an American citizen to undergo an unwanted medical process, a process that could be life threatening.

It would have a long way to go as Merchan obviously knew before an appeal could be decided

Knew what?  That there would be an appeal?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.2.14  Gsquared  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2.10    2 weeks ago
common sense

Not found anywhere in your comment.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.15  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @5.2.11    2 weeks ago

Yeah, my thoughts exactly.  I wonder how much some folks here donate to the former 'president' on a recurring basis.  The alleged billionaire.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
6  Gsquared    2 weeks ago

This is just another meaningless, partisan rant by an exceptionally weak and ineffective Speaker of the House.  The charges against Trump were supported by the facts, as the jury unanimously agreed, and no one has yet to show any appealable errors, only that their political leader was convicted, appropriately, for his criminality.

Unfortunately. Johnson's republican friends on the court have turned SCOTUS into a political institution, counter to the purpose of a judicial tribunal in America, and they are far too eager to render decisions based on their personal political positions rather than the law.

Trump's allies are already plotting revenge, with one prospective Trump attorney general telling Axios... that GOP prosecutors should go after Democrats in response.

Nothing new there.  The party of grievance and revenge was already promising to weaponize the judicial system to persecute their poltical enemies.  We're all aware their Dear Leader Trump declared "I am your retribution", and has made that a primary focus of his campaign.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.1  MrFrost  replied to  Gsquared @6    2 weeks ago

Literally the only reason repubs want this case to go to the SCOTUS is because they know the SCOTUS is heavily biased to the right. They don't want a fair shake, they want their criminal former POTUS to win, justice be damned. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @6.1    2 weeks ago
his case to go to the SCOTUS is because they know the SCOTUS is heavily biased to the right. They don't want a fair shake, they want their criminal former POTUS to win, justice be damned. 

Imagine making this claim while defending a trial orchestrated by a Judge who violated rules  to donate  to a "Stop Trump" campaign.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

Imagine pretending like a $15 donation has any comparison to hundreds of thousand of dollars in cash and gifts lavished on Supreme Court justices and their families to deliver politically-driven decisions.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @6.1.2    2 weeks ago

Lol. Giving money (any amount)  to stop the actual  defendant appearing before you is so much more unethical than receiving gifts from non litigants. 

but again, these are the people who think a judge's wife flying a flag is grounds for recusal but an actual judge  donating to stop a campaign against the actual party appealing before them is just fine and not evidence of bias .  Lucky for them cognitive dissonance isn't fatal. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Kavika   replied to  Gsquared @6.1.2    2 weeks ago

I've searched for a $15 RV for over a year or ever since I saw Justice Thomas's (gift) RV. Sadly this is the best I could come up with. 

512

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.5  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

What matters here (not assenting to your claim of a donation) is that this judge-like the jury-has been treated this case properly under the law. You can claim (like Donald) anything foul you wish. Until you can produce evidence of partiality against Donald it is just empty noise (on NT!)

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @6.1.5    2 weeks ago
) is that this judge-like the jury-has been treated this case properly under the law

Kudos. You go from arguing that the flag the wife of a judge flies in response to a neighborly dispute signals all sorts of bias and then turn around and claim a judge literally donating his own money to a campaign to stop a defendant who he is sitting in judgment of doesn't matter.[]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.7  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    2 weeks ago
Imagine making this claim while defending a trial orchestrated by a Judge who violated rules  to donate  to a "Stop Trump" campaign.

Link to "Stop Trump" campaign for this donation you reference, please.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @6.1.7    2 weeks ago

This is the org he donated to:

as well as Biden For President.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.9  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.3    2 weeks ago

You are doing a whataboutism. I can understand how easy it is to do so, but I would ask that you try disciplining yourself to deal with Donald's case and its scope without reaching for the aforementioned 'cop-out.' 

Merchan contributed $15 earmarked for the Biden campaign, and made two $10 contributions, one earmarked to the Progressive Turnout Project, a voter outreach organization, and another to Stop Republicans, a subsidiary of the Progressive Turnout Project.

Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at New York University , said that New York, like most US jurisdictions, has adopted language from the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judges from “soliciting funds for, paying an assessment to, or making a contribution to a political organization or candidate.”

“The contribution to Biden and possibly the one to ‘Stop Republicans’ would be forbidden unless there is some other explanation that would allow them,” Gillers said.

But Gillers said that the donation “would be viewed as trivial, especially given the small sums.” He said if a complaint was made, the state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct would remind the judge of the rules.

Asked if this could be grounds for a legal challenge or recusal, Gillers said, “Absolutely not. This does not come anywhere near the kind of proof required for recusal.”

$35 political contribution to Democrats raises fresh scrutiny of Judge Merchan - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

So Sean, that 'sticky' talking point of yours can be tossed as the experts have had a shot at it in public already. Judge Merchan 'won' the right to stay put.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @6.1.9    2 weeks ago
You are doing a whataboutism.

[] Judge Merchan 'won' the right to stay put.

You don't get it. Apply the same standards YOU apply to Alito because of the actions of HIS WIFE as you do to this Judge.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.10    2 weeks ago

[removed][]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.11    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.13  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.6    2 weeks ago

You err on account of Judge Merchan's 2020 donations totaling $35.00 (apples) to a justice's hot-water situation with supporting alleged insurrectionists (oranges). That's an apple and orange comparison. 

And, it goes to degrees: As you should know there is distinct difference between water that is cold and water which is boiling (degrees); a distinct difference a clean-shaven face, a face with a goatee, and a face with a beard. Degrees matter.

Don't pretend to not understand the aforementioned (as I am pretty sure you do), as I hate overstressing any one point!

Finally, were I to indulge your "comparison" of the two separate incidents of donations and supporting insurrectionists by flying flags. . .It is clear to anyone who has ever spent thirty-five dollars ($35.00) that it is not a sufficient amount to buy or sway a court judgement, while (allegedly) deliberately fighting flags in support of people acting out an insurrection is an attack against democracy

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.14  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.8    2 weeks ago

Mentioned in 6.1.9.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.15  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.10    2 weeks ago

Judge Alito has no bearing on this case. Distinctions matter.

Let me be even clearer: Whataboutism is a tactic. Judges frown on its practice in court sessions and most times will not allow this tactic because it distracts (from evidential facts) or hinders court integrity in getting to the truth of the matter being tried.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @6.1.15    2 weeks ago

Lol. I give up. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.17  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.16    2 weeks ago

Do!

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.1.18  MrFrost  replied to  Kavika @6.1.4    2 weeks ago

I got ya Buddy...

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
7  Hallux    2 weeks ago

Meh, the only thing Mike Johnson is capable of is serving as Pierre Poilievre's double, both are banana 'conservatives'.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @7    2 weeks ago

that thumper wimp johnson spent most of elementary and middle school climbing trees on the playground to retrieve his pants.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
8  Tacos!    2 weeks ago
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) called for the U.S. Supreme Court to "step in" to overturn the    guilty verdict   against former President Trump in his New York hush money trial.

On what possible grounds?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
8.1  Gsquared  replied to  Tacos! @8    2 weeks ago
On what possible grounds?

They didn't like the results.  Other than that, they have nothing.

From what I can tell Mike Johnson is to law what a quack is to medicine.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Gsquared @8.1    2 weeks ago
They didn't like the results.  Other than that, they have nothing.

Bingo. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
8.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  Gsquared @8.1    2 weeks ago

It really depresses me that people who have graduated from law school, and are now charged with making law can say such insanely stupid shit regarding a system in which they supposedly have been well educated.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @8.1.2    2 weeks ago

Partisanship distorts minds.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @8.1.2    2 weeks ago
It really depresses me that people who have graduated from law school, and are now charged with making law can say such insanely stupid shit regarding a system in which they supposedly have been well educated.

Some of it is theater.  They know that at least some of their audience doesn't know how this works, and thinks that Congress can just overrule the courts whenever they choose.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.1.5  CB  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.3    2 weeks ago

This is an opportunity to see these lawyers who grift for what they are. To be clear and fair, I see honest grifting taking place amongst the liberal side too. One lawyer in particular comes to mind as he wrote a book about this trial of Trump and published it before the trial concluded. If nothing else, we can "ID" these grifting lawyers for our own edification.

It's taking the initiative; it's opportunity. It's capitalism. Also, it's a dirty word: "Grifting.'

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Gsquared  replied to  Tacos! @8.1.2    2 weeks ago

They just don't care.  They have accepted the role of partisan propagandists.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @8    2 weeks ago
On what possible grounds?

Assuming the state courts don't throw it out for any number of reasons first and it's subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, Trump has Constitutional  due process and First Amendment claims.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8.2.1  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2    2 weeks ago

No Man Is Above The US Constitution or US Law in America!

original original

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @8.2.1    2 weeks ago

[] immunity has nothing to do with what I wrote.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2    2 weeks ago
Constitutional  due process and First Amendment claims.

Every defendant has the right to make "Constitutional  due process and First Amendment claims".

Tacos! did not ask if one has a right to make claims, he asked for the grounds.  That means specifics, not a generic bullshit answer.

What are the specific grounds for this hypothetical appeal for SCotUS to "step in" to overturn the verdict?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.3    2 weeks ago

For due process: 

lack of specificity in the indictment, unconstitutional vagueness of second crime  ...

I'm sure there's more. 

As to the First Amendment

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.4    2 weeks ago

I doubt it would go to the SCOTUS anyway, from a legal standpoint it's no more important than any other case with the same crimes. Trump is a private citizen, nothing more. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
9  Thrawn 31    2 weeks ago

Step in and do what? pull an out of their ass idea that the federal judiciary can overrule the states on a whim? Rule that presidents can’t face trial in state courts? Or just say “fuck the legal system, he’s innocent.” ?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
9.1  Ronin2  replied to  Thrawn 31 @9    2 weeks ago

Show us where states are allowed to prosecute federal laws?

This wasn't a federal court of law; a state was trying to use a federal law to turn what a misdemeanor at the state level into a felony.

Will you support Texas and Florida prosecuting federal law and deporting illegal immigrants since New York has set the precedent?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Ronin2 @9.1    2 weeks ago
a state was trying to use a federal law to turn what a misdemeanor at the state level into a felony.

He was convicted of violating a State law.

Here is the law Trump broke 34 times:

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

Without having memorized every law code in the country, I’m going to go out on a very short limb and say that every state has laws like this. Conspiracy laws generally make it a crime for two or more people to cooperate in committing “any crime,” - yes, they word it that way - without regard or concern for whether it’s a state or federal crime.

This is not a new thing. It happens every day, all over the country.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.1    2 weeks ago

but, but, but, all successful republican business men do it. why single out trump to persecute/prosecute?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
9.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @9.1    2 weeks ago
Show us where states are allowed to prosecute federal laws?

Trump violated state laws, that's why the trial was in NY State. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
9.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @9.1.3    2 weeks ago
mp violated state laws, that's why the trial was in NY State. 

The Judge allowed the jury to pick a federal election  law as a predicate of a state crime.  Thousands of people across the country have  violated federal election laws. Find one example of a state prosecutor charging any of them. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
9.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.1    2 weeks ago
He was convicted of violating a State law.

Why ignore the other law he was charged with violating? There are two laws at play.

how many times has New York ever prosecuted anyone for violating the second law that allowed this prosecution to go forward?    

A.  Zero. 

his is not a new thing. It happens every day, all over the country.

Really? Can you point to an example of a state judge allowing a jury to choose a violation of federal election law as a predicate of a state crime?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  devangelical @9.1.2    2 weeks ago

Because he’s orange  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.5    2 weeks ago

800

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.1.8  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.6    2 weeks ago

People of all colors go to prison for financial frauds all the time. I can think of a dozen men I knew who falsified liens or sold collateral or broke banking laws brought low by it...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.5    2 weeks ago

So, a few things you need to realize:

First, and very generally, charging crimes can get complicated. Conspiracy to commit a crime, for example, is charged along with the underlying crime all the time. You don’t need to prove both. Similarly, Committing crime A with intent to do action B or unlawful act C are prosecuted all the time. Burglary is sort of an classic example. Burglary is generally defined as entering the premises of another without permission with the intent to commit a felony. You don’t have to prove the felony to prove burglary.

Second, the federal crime is only one of three the jury was allowed to consider. The other two were state crimes. So it may not be super important that the federal law was included.

Third, If you sift through the definitions of things like “crime” or “offense” in the law, you will see that the legislature clearly states when they mean to limit the statute to state crimes and when they want to leave it more open. Like they’ll say “the laws of this state” or they might instead just say “any governmental institution.” This has been held to include the federal government.

Finally, we have a specific example quite recently, and close to Trump’s home. His former CFO, Allen Weisselberg, was recently charged, plead guilty, and served time in Rikers. His crime was violating state law in taking (and also distributing) improper payments for the purpose of covering up an attempt to avoid paying federal taxes.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.1.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @9.1.8    2 weeks ago
I can think of a dozen men I knew who falsified liens or sold collateral or broke banking laws brought low by it.

Maybe you should get a new social roster.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
9.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.9    2 weeks ago

I understand the mechanics of the prosecutions' theory.  The point is that it is in fact unprecedented, and not "something that happens every day." 

Again,  no one has ever been charged, no matter the underlying crime,  under the state conspiracy statute Trump was. The Clinton campaign, and countless others, could have prosecuted by the state of  New York under that statute. They weren't.  

And never before , anywhere in the country, despite thousands of actual charged FECA violations, has a  state judge allowed  a jury to choose a violation of FECA law as a predicate of a state crime. Again, thousands of FECA violations over the years.  Never used as a predicate in a state prosecution. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.11    2 weeks ago
The point is that it is in fact unprecedented

That is not a fact, and I even gave you an example.

Again,  no one has ever been charged, no matter the underlying crime,  under the state conspiracy statute Trump was.

He wasn’t charged with conspiracy. He was charged with falsifying business records in furtherance of some other crime - 3 specific crimes. 1 federal. 2 state.

I’ve done enough work for you. Ignoring it is . . . a choice, I guess.

You said it has happened zero times. I gave you one (which is not zero) and it even happened to another member of the Trump organization. If you want to make any more claims about how this has never happened anywhere in the country ever before, I insist you you prove it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
9.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.12    2 weeks ago

 wasn’t charged with conspiracy

Try again. Granted, you won't find it in the indictment (another can of worms )but read the jury instructions.  

 and it even happened to another member of the Trump organization

Read what I wrote again.  Weisselberg was not charged with campaign law violations. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.1.14  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.13    2 weeks ago

Every single crime in Trump's indictments involved a conspiracy that required Trump to know what was what and order that it be done!

"SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
-against-
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant. 
THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses 
the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST 
DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission 
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice 
from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump 
Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization. 
SECOND COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the 
defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, 
in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission 
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in
the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 
842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization."

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.1.15  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.12    2 weeks ago

One of the greatest men I ever knew went to prison for two long years for backdating a lien document. He actually had moral right to the oldest lien on a business and property he sold to and self financed for a family member. But, that family member put the property up as collateral for a bank loan before my friend got his original lien filed. So, my friend backdated and changed his original lien document to make it look like it predated the banks. For this he lost pretty much everything and went to prison. All in all, much less a crime of any consequence than those Trump is convicted of.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
9.1.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @9.1.14    2 weeks ago

I have no idea why you post that in response to me, since I'm not the one who claimed there was no conspiracy charge against Trump.

But here's the thing, Conspiracy is a specific crime trump is alleged to have committed.. It's not  175.1

It's been posted numerous times. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.1.17  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.13    2 weeks ago
Try again

No. Trump was convicted on 34 counts of violating New York State Penal Law, SECTION 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree

Live in ignorance, if you must, but leave me out of it. Deal in facts or get lost.

W eisselberg was not charged with campaign law violations.

I didn’t say he was. No reason for you to declare it.

Weisselberg pled to fifteen state charges including Falsifying Business Records - a felony - for the purpose of defrauding both state and federal tax agencies.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L Bragg, Jr. today announced the guilty plea of ALLEN WEISSELBERG, 75, the Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization and an employee of the Trump Corporation – for devising and operating a 15-year scheme to defraud federal , New York State, and New York City tax authorities, evading payment of taxes due on $1.76 million in unreported income.
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
9.1.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.17    2 weeks ago
Live in ignorance, if you must, but leave me out of it. Deal in facts or get lost.

Lol. "Live in ignorance"  

I'll break it down for you and then you can apologize. 

175.1 is the first crime. It  requires a second crime.

an d when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereo

That's what that clause means. 

The second crime is  Sec 17-152, a misdemeanor conspiracy charge.

.https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york.chapter-election.article-17-protecting-the-elective-franchise.title-1-violations-of-the-elective-franchise.section-17-152-conspiracy-to-promote-or-prevent-election 

To satisfy the requirements of  Section 17-152, the Judge allowed the jury to choose from three possible options, including the alleged campaign law violation. 

If you can't understand that from reading the jury instructions, find a competent legal analyst to explain it. A few have finally figured it out and gotten it right. 

So get it right and stop spreading misinformation. As I said, no one has ever been prosecuted New York under 17-152. 

id n’t say he was. No reason for you to declare it

Do you understand how to rebut a claim?  Because if you were actually trying to make sense and not post a strawman, then you would have responded to what I actually wrote and  posted an example of campaign law violations being used by a state prosecutor in the following circumstances: " despite thousands of actual charged FECA violations , never  has a  state judge allowed  a jury to choose a violation of FECA law as a predicate of a state crime. Again, thousands of FECA violation s over the years.  Never used as a predicate in a state prosecution." 

You posted WEISSELBERG's conviction on a tax issue. Either you don't grasp the difference between FECA violations and tax crimes or you just wanted to deflect with a straw man argument using an "example" of a tax crime.  

so despite the deflections and insults, both of these statements remain unrebutted:   " no one has ever been charged, no matter the underlying crime,  under the state conspiracy statute Trump was."  and never  has a  state judge allowed  a jury to choose a violation of FECA law as a predicate of a state crime 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.1.19  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @9.1.15    2 weeks ago

I keep thinking if they put Martha Stewart in prison for what - 5 months? - surely Trump deserves some time.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.1.20  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.19    2 weeks ago

A key difference is that Martha had a federal conviction while Trump was convicted in one of the most lenient large cities.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.1.21  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.18    2 weeks ago

Every post from you has been an irrelevant fantasy. I have given you relevant information with relevant links and you don’t care. You are determined to see injustice where none exists, and the facts be damned. Good day to you.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.1.22  Tacos!  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.1.20    2 weeks ago

True, and federal sentencing is almost always harsher. On the other hand, she was convicted on, I think, 4 counts and was very well behaved. He was not only convicted on 34 counts, but he committed Contempt of Court 10 times. And then after his conviction, he’s already going around talking about how crooked the judge is. He’s definitely pissing away any shot he had at leniency.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.1.23  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.22    2 weeks ago

The number of counts won’t be an issue as they were all part of the same act, just accounted for with 11 checks, 11 invoices and 12 ledger entries.  His behavior and lack of responsibility and remorse should be taken into account though.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10  CB    2 weeks ago

Speaker Johnson (Spkr. Johnson) has revealed himself to be part of the sickness in our society. Listen up! We have citizens here whom have never accepted others of us-generally-living among them. Such people as Spkr. Johnson) are making it clear that politically MAGA is about some conservative outcomes up and down the line. They simply do not see liberals (and their friends) as equals and so liberals and their friends have no freedoms, liberties, privileges, and legal rights that some conservatives must respect.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
11  George    2 weeks ago

256

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
11.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  George @11    2 weeks ago

Yeah, George, but all the cards say.,..

183445-1024__71040.1582783225.jpg?c=2?imbypass=on

800

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12  CB    2 weeks ago

Count it. . . nine damn years of Donald being in the spotlight, even when he is bound for the barn. And here we have a 'newly minted' Speaker not unburdening his party of Donald—instead seeking to 'glorify' him

Nine years of near daily misinformation and lies coming out of Donald. . . and this Speaker, this so-called, "man of faith" sees reason to deny justice and persist in giving Donald the world-stage yet again. . . to do 'mas' lies. 

And still the counting of daily lies continues. . . . 

 
 

Who is online



Gazoo
Texan1211
JohnRussell
Igknorantzruls
cjcold


45 visitors