Jump to content

America officially becomes a banana republic indicating a presidential candidate, likely jail time


Recommended Posts

Many of the Trump fanatics are very challenged in looking at things like legal cases. Logically I mean. 

Basically they are tribal in nature, so they are bad at analysis and they just look at things like loyalty, my country right or wrong etc 

 

For people who are looking for actual things about this case that might be seen as unfair to Trump, have a read of this. 

 

https://news.syr.edu/blog/2024/05/07/law-professor-the-manhattan-district-attorneys-convoluted-legal-case-against-donald-trump-gets-more-convoluted/

 

There may be enough here to get him off on appeal, but his lawy ers don't see m competent enough to go there.  The main thing I see is that the misdemeanor part was outside the statute of limitations, and that's necessary to prove the stronger charge.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Many of the Trump fanatics are very challenged in looking at things like legal cases. Logically I mean. 

Basically they are tribal in nature, so they are bad at analysis and they just look at things like loyalty, my country right or wrong etc 

 

For people who are looking for actual things about this case that might be seen as unfair to Trump, have a read of this. 

 

https://news.syr.edu/blog/2024/05/07/law-professor-the-manhattan-district-attorneys-convoluted-legal-case-against-donald-trump-gets-more-convoluted/

 

There may be enough here to get him off on appeal, but his lawy ers don't see m competent enough to go there.  The main thing I see is that the misdemeanor part was outside the statute of limitations, and that's necessary to prove the stronger charge.

The 30 whatever charges were basically just writing realistically two or three charges a bunch of different ways. 

The reason why I think it's a sham is because to the average observer it would seem he did something very very wrong 30 something charges wrong. It's written for effect which is sad and pathetic for a functioning democracy to be doing this. 

Also there's no evidence Trump directed Cohen and realistically he's relying on a legal expert to do things in a way that's above board. Be like you using a real estate agent to buy your house then getting charged for fraud afterward because they didn't do something right with your transaction. Any honest person would see that as unreasonable but most people don't even know what he's being charged for. 

They see he banged a porn star, think it's repugnant then excuse this nonsense because they have no idea what's even happening

 

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, West said:

The 30 whatever charges were basically just writing realistically two or three charges a bunch of different ways. 

The reason why I think it's a sham is because to the average observer it would seem he did something very very wrong 30 something charges wrong. It's written for effect which is sad and pathetic for a functioning democracy to be doing this. 

Also there's no evidence Trump directed Cohen and realistically he's relying on a legal expert to do things in a way that's above board. Be like you using a real estate agent to buy your house then getting charged for fraud afterward because they didn't do something right with your transaction. Any honest person would see that as unreasonable but most people don't even know what he's being charged for. 

They see he banged a porn star, think it's repugnant then excuse this nonsense because they have no idea what's even happening

 

Yeah, but you're talking about most people, who were not in the courtroom and did not see all the evidence presented. 

I think you're second-guessing them. 

I already posted some good grounds for debate, but I don't know that his defense team brought any of that up. I believe Cohen, but I also think New York is corrupt

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah, but you're talking about most people, who were not in the courtroom and did not see all the evidence presented. 

I think you're second-guessing them. 

I already posted some good grounds for debate, but I don't know that his defense team brought any of that up. I believe Cohen, but I also think New York is corrupt

The judge also refused to allow certain witnesses that would've helped trumps case. 

My guess is he wins on appeal then sues new York into oblivion unless Biden decides to try and stack the Supreme Court. Which is entirely a possibility.. probably the most vile president of my lifetime

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Many of the Trump fanatics are very challenged in looking at things like legal cases. Logically I mean. 

Basically they are tribal in nature, so they are bad at analysis and they just look at things like loyalty, my country right or wrong etc 

 

For people who are looking for actual things about this case that might be seen as unfair to Trump, have a read of this. 

 

https://news.syr.edu/blog/2024/05/07/law-professor-the-manhattan-district-attorneys-convoluted-legal-case-against-donald-trump-gets-more-convoluted/

 

There may be enough here to get him off on appeal, but his lawy ers don't see m competent enough to go there.  The main thing I see is that the misdemeanor part was outside the statute of limitations, and that's necessary to prove the stronger charge.

The misdemeanors are elevated to felonies when accompanied by the intent of more serious motivational crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, West said:

The judge also refused to allow certain witnesses that would've helped trumps case. 

My guess is he wins on appeal then sues new York into oblivion unless Biden decides to try and stack the Supreme Court. Which is entirely a possibility.. probably the most vile president of my lifetime

Your guess is typical of the ignorant amateur legal eagle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The misdemeanors are elevated to felonies when accompanied by the intent of more serious motivational crimes.

Okay but what was that intent? 

 

What were the other crimes?

Don't get me wrong... I don't feel sorry for the guy. But this might be a whole pile of wrongs attempting to make it right. And it's not like New York State is above retribution right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Okay but what was that intent? 

 

What were the other crimes?

Don't get me wrong... I don't feel sorry for the guy. But this might be a whole pile of wrongs attempting to make it right. And it's not like New York State is above retribution right?

What's your thoughts on the defense going first? 

Seems just like a sham so that the prosecution can adjust their "evidence" and isn't typical in the western legal system. You don't prove your innocent despite the lefts new attempts to make it so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Okay but what was that intent? 

 

What were the other crimes?

Don't get me wrong... I don't feel sorry for the guy. But this might be a whole pile of wrongs attempting to make it right. And it's not like New York State is above retribution right?

There was a list of more serious crimes from which for the jury to choose.

NY State election law regarding fraudulent interference.

FECA election law

Tax law. Among others.

Edited by robosmith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

There may be enough here to get him off on appeal, but his lawy ers don't see m competent enough to go there.  The main thing I see is that the misdemeanor part was outside the statute of limitations, and that's necessary to prove the stronger charge.

Even felonies in NY have a 5-yr statute of limitations, aside from violent crimes like felony assault and rape. All of these bogus charges fell by the wayside in 2021. It was just another sham trial. 

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

There was a list of more serious crimes from which for the jury to choose.

NY State election law regarding fraudulent interference.

FECA election law

Tax law. Among others.

That's not how it works. The jury has to be unanimous on the charge and the guilt. They can't just say "well, he must be guilty of something." Further, Trump didn't know what he was charged with until the jury instructions. That's highly unusual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, robosmith said:

There was a list of more serious crimes from which for the jury to choose.

NY State election law regarding fraudulent interference.

FECA election law

Tax law. Among others.

So basically just choose some nonsense, create some evidence deny the guy a defense and then convict.. very vile

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, West said:

So basically just choose some nonsense, create some evidence deny the guy a defense and then convict.. very vile

It was a show trial.

There was no alleged crime pointed to that wasn't already beyond its statute of limitations, there were no credible witnesses giving valuable testimony, there was no evidence of any criminal activity, it was just a chance to get Trump in front of a judge and waste his time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

That's not how it works. The jury has to be unanimous on the charge and the guilt. They can't just say "well, he must be guilty of something." Further, Trump didn't know what he was charged with until the jury instructions. That's highly unusual.

Where did you get YOUR law degree? Trump confirmed he understood the charges previously when asked.

I'll go with Merchan's explanations over your amateur legal eagle opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, West said:

So basically just choose some nonsense, create some evidence deny the guy a defense and then convict.. very vile

Trump had his defense, But his team really mucked it up and he refused to testify like he said he would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

It was a show trial.

There was no alleged crime pointed to that wasn't already beyond its statute of limitations, there were no credible witnesses giving valuable testimony, there was no evidence of any criminal activity, it was just a chance to get Trump in front of a judge and waste his time.  

The jury says YOU'RE WRONG, and that's the ONLY THING that counts.

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

^Means NOTHING. Esp not from that tabloid TRASH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The jury says YOU'RE WRONG, and that's the ONLY THING that counts.

^Means NOTHING. Esp not from that tabloid TRASH.

The jury didn't prove anything. The whole trial was a farce.

NYTimes wrote about Merchan's donations to Biden as well, dummy. 

ScreenShot2024-05-30at7_29_38PM.thumb.png.ea993dad56e7065d150d40359623a340.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Trump had his defense, But his team really mucked it up and he refused to testify like he said he would.

The judge knowingly allowed a case to be brought well passed the statute of limitations. Very sad

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...