Alan Dershowitz:
“Long before Donald Trump's hush-money trial concluded, I predicted that his conviction was a forgone conclusion – despite the obvious weakness of the case against him.

Had the prosecution been brought in another part of the country, or even in another part of New York State, which was more fairly balanced with anti and pro-Trump voters, I am in little doubt that the outcome would have been different.

But instead, on Thursday, Trump became the first former president to be found guilty of a crime – convicted on all 34 flimsy counts of 'falsifying business records.'

Why? Because this case was tried in Manhattan, where practically every man on the street wants to keep one Donald Trump out of the White House.

Perhaps the most important function of an independent jury in criminal trials is to keep a check on the biases of prosecutors and judges.

But for this constitutional protection to work, jurors must not be biased themselves against a defendant.

It's quite apparent that this essential protection was absent. …”

DailyMail article:
https://mol.im/a/13481565

NYC seems bound and determined to drive the people with money out of the city and state. Excessive taxes, labor union favoritism, terrible schools, illegal alien amnesty, rampant crime, all of it.

Now that they are showing they will target individuals with laws of attainder, selective prosecution, inflating minor process misdemeanors to felonies and everything else we have seen they do to Trump, billionaires on Wall Street will take notice lest the same thing happen to them if they become politically disfavored. Now that you can work from anywhere, why continue to do business in NYC?

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
<<snip>>
Pretty sure Tulsi is antigun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T554Gt0iL5k

Didn't sound that way to me! Sounds like she is "coming around" to the truth of why we need the 2nd Amendment, and why people need guns. She specifically mentioned protection from a tyrannical government, then went on to provide examples. Sounds like she has awakened to reality to me... at least I hope so!

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

In United States v. Wilson (1833), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a pardon can be rejected by the intended recipient and must be affirmatively accepted to be officially recognized by the courts.

Thanks! It seemed a pretty scary scenario.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Only crimes against the US are pardonable by the president. State crimes are pardonable either by the governor.


The NY gov could pardon him since it would probably help Joe from falling further in the polls, and it's giving Trump a huge boost. She won't because she's narrow focused on being a party hack.

Still, Trump isn't going to jail, at least not anytime soon and certainly not before the election. He has 30 days starting today to file his Notice of Appeal and once filed, he has six months to file it - well past November.

I’m not familiar with the appeals process so please educate me. If Trump is actively appealing this case does that mean that the judge can’t sentence him to jail time? If not, then what would stop him? Everything I’ve seen from this judge gives me the impression that is exactly what he wants to do…put Trump behind bars until at least after the election is over. But if there is something that can legally prevent him from doing so I would love to hear about it.

Glendale, California, today

^^^ Love it!

quote:

Originally posted by bronicabill:

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
<<snip>>
Pretty sure Tulsi is antigun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T554Gt0iL5k

Didn't sound that way to me! Sounds like she is "coming around" to the truth of why we need the 2nd Amendment, and why people need guns. She specifically mentioned protection from a tyrannical government, then went on to provide examples. Sounds like she has awakened to reality to me... at least I hope so!

don't trust her

the 2A is part of the foundation and principle of the country and she has been against it until recently....

politicians seldom change their stripes when they are rabidly anti-gun for so long

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:

quote:

Originally posted by bronicabill:

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
<<snip>>
Pretty sure Tulsi is antigun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T554Gt0iL5k

Didn't sound that way to me! Sounds like she is "coming around" to the truth of why we need the 2nd Amendment, and why people need guns. She specifically mentioned protection from a tyrannical government, then went on to provide examples. Sounds like she has awakened to reality to me... at least I hope so!

don't trust her

the 2A is part of the foundation and principle of the country and she has been against it until recently....

politicians seldom change their stripes when they are rabidly anti-gun for so long

Did you bother to watch that video? If not I would suggest doing so. You don’t even have to watch the whole thing to get an answer to your question.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:

Yes. The ambiguous "crime" is the offense the 34 charges were made in furtherance of, that made the 34 charges felonies instead of misdemeanors with

Are you an attorney? I ask because I would like to use your points on another forum.

.

I can't answer for Lefty, and I'm not a lawyer.

Look at the various articles written in the past few weeks by Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley who are experienced lawyers (and Dersh for sure has been a lifelong Dem).

Each count of the indictment was related to an entry in the Trump company books that said Legal Expense rather than something like "NDA payment to Stormy Daniels". At worst it was a misdemeanor whose statute of limitations was expired, though apparently it is common to account for NDA costs as part of legal expenses.

The crime he was convicted of is a felony because it was allegedly done to further another more serious crime. That is, it was alleged that he had deceptive accounting entries in order to enable or cover up another more serious crime. If there wasn't another more serious crime, then he is innocent of the charges whether or not the accounting entries were perfect.

The prosecution never clearly stated what that more serious crime was, though they hinted at some possibilities during the trial. Thus, Trump was not able to directly answer specific allegations. If the prosecution had provided testimony that Trump had committed a specific other more serious crime such as tax fraud or a federal election law violation, Trump would have been able to provide evidence to show that was false.

What happened was the following: Trump's defense knew the prosecution would hint at a vague election interference or illegal campaign contribution, so they wanted to have a former head of the Federal Election Commission testify that a non-disclosure payment is not a campaign violation, but the judge prohibited that testimony!

Then at the wrap up, in NY state the defendant's lawyer gives their closing statement to the jury first, followed by the prosecutor. AFTER Trump's lawyer finished, the prosecutor then stated as a fact (3 times iirc) that Trump committed an election violation.

As a result, Trump's lawyer was not allowed to refute that assertion! And the judge did not prohibit the prosecutor from making those assertions to the jury.

There is much more that was wrong with the trial and especially the judge's actions, but that is the gist of the issue about the higher crime.

That's a haul. Damn!

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
GOP Senators Revolt: Ten Lawmakers to Boycott Passing Bills with Democrats, Citing White House’s ‘Un-American’ Actions and Rule of Law ‘Mockery’

Thanks for this. I wrote to both of my senators and will be contacting my US representative as well.

Silent

I pray that Trump somehow finds a way to remain in office after 2028. You know a man instills fear in the Democratic party when they bribe judges to pin felonies on him.

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
I pray that Trump somehow finds a way to remain in office after 2028...

What "office"? The WH? How? By ignoring the Constitution?

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
I pray that Trump somehow finds a way to remain in office after 2028.

Don't post shit like this.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
I pray that Trump somehow finds a way to remain in office after 2028...

What "office"? The WH? How? By ignoring the Constitution?

What comes after Trump? How far will Democrats go next time to win? 2020, largest documented organized voter fraud in US history. 2024, felonies are pulled out of thin air by a compromised judicial system. Roosevelt served 12 years and we are facing a combined threat greater than the Axis powers of WW2. Trump will need more than four years to drain the swamp, end the border invasion, win the trade war with China, etc.

Man.

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
What comes after Trump? How far will Democrats go next time to win? 2020, largest documented organized voter fraud in US history. 2024, felonies are pulled out of thin air by a compromised judicial system. Roosevelt served 12 years and we are facing a combined threat greater than the Axis powers of WW2. Trump will need more than four years to drain the swamp, end the border invasion, win the trade war with China, etc.

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

What did I say to you?

This is SIGforum, not weareelevenyearoldsatsummercampmakingupsillystoriesafterlightsoutforum