The verdict is in.

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: UKTruth
Trump can forget hoping for any justice from the appeals court

Appeals Judges

Not every judge has to be a Dem paid, partisan scumbag like Merchan is.

Sooner or later, Trump has to run into a judge or judges that want to follow the rule of law.

When that happens, Trump wins.

Are you able to share with us any points of law that Judge Merchan failed to follow?
you may want to read up on New York State law before you commit to answering me.

For reference i have been following a group of lawyers that actually respect the law.

You might want to start your education there :

Link to education

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Ron Filipkowski and his band of Liberal goons?

The assholes that sell Michael Cohen’s T-shirts?

You gotta be F’ing kidding me.

Yeah you are really “educated” by them. GTFO.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: UKTruth
Trump can forget hoping for any justice from the appeals court

Appeals Judges

Not every judge has to be a Dem paid, partisan scumbag like Merchan is.

Sooner or later, Trump has to run into a judge or judges that want to follow the rule of law.

When that happens, Trump wins.

Are you able to share with us any points of law that Judge Merchan failed to follow?
you may want to read up on New York State law before you commit to answering me.

For reference i have been following a group of lawyers that actually respect the law.

You might want to start your education there :

Link to education

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Ron Filipkowski and his band of Liberal goons?

The assholes that sell Michael Cohen’s T-shirts?

You gotta be F’ing kidding me.

Yeah you are really “educated” by them. GTFO.

Don't bother with him
When someone posts ...

You might want to start your education there

...you know you are simply dealing with an absolute clown.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

FFS it is called due process. It is really not that hard. Most of us learned it in Civics in Elementary, then middle, then high school.

It falls under the fifth amendment.

A person is innocent until proven guilty. He was proven guilty. He is now a convicted felon.

Guess what? It means nothing.

No one who voted for him before cares.
People who did not vote for him realize the "BS" he is spreading is true
He will garner more votes in 2024 than in 2020.

The issue now is how to sentence.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
His complete lack of remorse will go against him when it comes to sentencing.

Can't have remorse over something that you didn't do.

He didn't commit a crime, therefore he has no remorse.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Sookiechacha

FFS it is called due process. It is really not that hard. Most of us learned it in Civics in Elementary, then middle, then high school.

It falls under the fifth amendment.

A person is innocent until proven guilty. He was proven guilty. He is now a convicted felon.

Guess what? It means nothing.

No one who voted for him before cares.
People who did not vote for him realize the "BS" he is spreading is true
He will garner more votes in 2024 than in 2020.

The issue now is how to sentence.

The sentencing will be interesting.
Some parallels in NY suggest that it could range from probation to 6 months in prison - or a couple of days per week confined for a number of years.
Personally i think it will be longer in jail as we know precedent has been thrown out the window.
Whatever the sentence it will be to minimise campaigning time, so we might see something like 6 months to ensure he's behind bars in the lead up to the election and through to Jan 2025 - or they might go for longer to bake in his jail time in case he does get elected.

a reply to: MrGashler

This is incorrect because the presumption of innocence is the basis for due process of law which IS a constitutional right.

No it isn't. The basis for due process is law and order.

You're incorrect because you claimed that the presumption of innocence is not a constitutional right.

It isn't. When a police officer stops a driver, they don't assume the driver is innocent. They run a check. That's SOP, not a constitutional violation of a driver's right.

If a government employee believes that you haven't paid a parking fine, for example, you're the one who has to prove that you did. The government employee doesn't have to prove you didn't.

You have the constitutional right to due process, whatever that due process is, before the government can take your life, liberty or property. However, the government can take/hold your liberty and/or your bail money/property, while it decides your guilt or innocence, because that is part of the due process.

It doesn't have to be enumerated verbatim in the text. You won't find "separation of church and state" in the constitution or the bill of rights but I'll bet money you won't say that it isn't a thing because it's not written verbatim in the text.

Mmmm. Separation of church and state is a concept that's pretty hard to get around based on the 1st Amendment's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"...and all that.

a reply to: matafuchs

A person is innocent until proven guilty. He was proven guilty. He is now a convicted felon.

Tell that to the person sitting in prison awaiting their day in court, because they couldn't make bail. Tell it to their jailer. Tell it to their prosecutor, busy following leads while looking for ways to prove their guilt to a jury.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
So, he's had a right old go at the Judge in breach of the gagging order. He's been warned with jail if he did that again, I believe?

His complete lack of remorse will go against him when it comes to sentencing.

Trump isn’t gagged from talking about the judge.

a reply to: UKTruth

Whatever the sentence it will be to minimise campaigning time, so we might see something like 6 months to ensure he's behind bars in the lead up to the election and through to Jan 2025 - or they might go for longer to bake in his jail time in case he does get elected.

I'm betting dollars to donuts that Donald Trump gets probation.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
So, he's had a right old go at the Judge in breach of the gagging order. He's been warned with jail if he did that again, I believe?

His complete lack of remorse will go against him when it comes to sentencing.

Be happy if you like and salivate about jail time for your anti-christ.
But please spare us the #ty notion that he has to have remorse.
There is absolutely zero to be remorseful about in this case.

Salivating? I just posted some legal facts. Did I say he should show remorse?

No. I just pointed out that lack of remorse is a factor taken into account when sentencing a felon convicted by a jury.

No need to get all puffed up about what I actually posted.

I have said a few times on here that this is all politically motivated so direct your ire elsewhere.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: UKTruth

Whatever the sentence it will be to minimise campaigning time, so we might see something like 6 months to ensure he's behind bars in the lead up to the election and through to Jan 2025 - or they might go for longer to bake in his jail time in case he does get elected.

I'm betting dollars to donuts that Donald Trump gets probation.

I would be surprised if he only got probabtion.
The aim of the game will be to keep him off the campaign trail.

a reply to: Vermilion

Oh. My mistake. Apologies.

But slagging off the DA etc is in breach, I believe?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

Trump and his team were notified of all charges, they were allowed to file and argue pre-trial motions, they took part in jury selection, they were allowed to cross the prosecution's witness and present their own case.

This is the definition of due process. At the end of the day, Trump's lawyers failed. Whether this was due to Trump micromanaging every aspect of the defense or his lawyers just being bad remains to be argued. But I would say it's going to be hard to argue Merchan was biased when he was making objections for the defense because Trump's team wasn't making them on their own.

so no constutional issues at all, the judge and trial were toally above board. Good enough. If that's not the case in appeal. then your legal prowless will be glaringly evident. If it all holds up, you will be a hero.

BTW, can you explain exactly what Trump did wrong please? I just want to know what records he falsified. And as it's in evidence, you should be able to show that.

The NDA Payment to Stormi Daniels, because the MOTIVE of the NDA was A PR move for his political campaign, was a campaign contribution thay wasnt recorded.

They proved Donald Trump knew that and blatantly went through with it. It was further proven when "the cover up was worse than the crime"

In order for him to hide the campaign contribution, he falsified his business records and recorded it as a legal expense that had nothing to do with his campaign.

He not only repayed cohen, but he also grossed him up for the tax implications. Which is a tax crime I believe.

They had him dead to rights on falsification of business records. Because he comitted that crime to specifically hide payments that were made to help his political campai, that made it a felony.

The jury had to unanimously agree on 2 things

1. That he knowingly falsified business records

2. That he falsified the business records to aid another crime (regardless of what it is)

The business records show he signed the checks, his own secretary confirmed it on the witness stand. The national enquirer guy (whatever his name is) testified that Trump knew the NDA was to help his political campaign and he basically pre-corroborated Cohens testimony. They had an audio recording of Trump corroborating that he participated in these subversive payment practices, they have transcripts of calls furthering the notion this was for the campaign.

Its not rocket science. They kayed the case out perfectly.

Thats why the DAs closing argument was 5 hours. They literally pasted the hard physical evidence all of the screen, endless PowerPoints, for 5 hours.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: UKTruth
Trump can forget hoping for any justice from the appeals court

Appeals Judges

Not every judge has to be a Dem paid, partisan scumbag like Merchan is.

Sooner or later, Trump has to run into a judge or judges that want to follow the rule of law.

When that happens, Trump wins.

Are you able to share with us any points of law that Judge Merchan failed to follow?
you may want to read up on New York State law before you commit to answering me.

For reference i have been following a group of lawyers that actually respect the law.

You might want to start your education there :

Link to education

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Ron Filipkowski and his band of Liberal goons?

The assholes that sell Michael Cohen’s T-shirts?

You gotta be F’ing kidding me.

Yeah you are really “educated” by them. GTFO.

Don't bother with him
When someone posts ...

You might want to start your education there

...you know you are simply dealing with an absolute clown.

I knew it was clown town as soon as I saw who he linked to.

They sell Michael Cohen’s shirts on their website.
Stone Liberal losers.

originally posted by: LucidParadox89

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

Trump and his team were notified of all charges, they were allowed to file and argue pre-trial motions, they took part in jury selection, they were allowed to cross the prosecution's witness and present their own case.

This is the definition of due process. At the end of the day, Trump's lawyers failed. Whether this was due to Trump micromanaging every aspect of the defense or his lawyers just being bad remains to be argued. But I would say it's going to be hard to argue Merchan was biased when he was making objections for the defense because Trump's team wasn't making them on their own.

so no constutional issues at all, the judge and trial were toally above board. Good enough. If that's not the case in appeal. then your legal prowless will be glaringly evident. If it all holds up, you will be a hero.

BTW, can you explain exactly what Trump did wrong please? I just want to know what records he falsified. And as it's in evidence, you should be able to show that.

The NDA Payment to Stormi Daniels, because the MOTIVE of the NDA was A PR move for his political campaign, was a campaign contribution thay wasnt recorded.

They proved Donald Trump knew that and blatantly went through with it. It was further proven when "the cover up was worse than the crime"

In order for him to hide the campaign contribution, he falsified his business records and recorded it as a legal expense that had nothing to do with his campaign.

He not only repayed cohen, but he also grossed him up for the tax implications. Which is a tax crime I believe.

They had him dead to rights on falsification of business records. Because he comitted that crime to specifically hide payments that were made to help his political campai, that made it a felony.

The jury had to unanimously agree on 2 things

1. That he knowingly falsified business records

2. That he falsified the business records to aid another crime (regardless of what it is)

The business records show he signed the checks, his own secretary confirmed it on the witness stand. The national enquirer guy (whatever his name is) testified that Trump knew the NDA was to help his political campaign and he basically pre-corroborated Cohens testimony. They had an audio recording of Trump corroborating that he participated in these subversive payment practices, they have transcripts of calls furthering the notion this was for the campaign.

Its not rocket science. They kayed the case out perfectly.

Thats why the DAs closing argument was 5 hours. They literally pasted the hard physical evidence all of the screen, endless PowerPoints, for 5 hours.

There was no campaign finance violation.
Thus the rest of your reasoning is irrelevant - as was the prosecutions for the same reason.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Vermilion

Oh. My mistake. Apologies.

But slagging off the DA etc is in breach, I believe?

Trump can talk about fat Alvin Bragg as well.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That would be the 8th Amendment.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Vermilion

Oh. My mistake. Apologies.

But slagging off the DA etc is in breach, I believe?

No.

a reply to: LucidParadox89

Can you explain how a campaign contribution was made because the prosecution could not. Michael Cohen, not part of the campaign, paid a private citizen money from his own account using an LLC. Sounds like a private business transaction.

Then, after he paid the money for extortion he billed The Trump Organization, not the Trump Campaign.

So yes, it is not rocket science but they did it. I will say they were creative in how it happened and it all goes back to Cohen getting popped. They knew he was the weak link and it took awhile but they waited. If this was so important why wait so long?

It is what it is.

a reply to: Vermilion

"the Expanded Otder that is pertinent to the instant modons is: b. ORDERED, that the Court's Order of March 26,2024, is amended as indicated below. Defendant is directed to tefrain from: Making or directing othets to make pubhc statements about known or reasonablv foteseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation ot in this cnminal proceeding; Making or directing others to make public statements about (1) counsel in the case ot]er than the District Attorney, (2) members of the Court's staff and the District Attorney's staff, or (3) the family members of any counsel, stafi member, the Court or the District Attorney, if those statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with, counsel's or staffs work in this crimrnal case, or with the knowledge that such interference is likely to result; and Making or directing others to make public statements about any prospective juror or any juror in this criminal proceeding."

Is what it seems to say.

Apologies again.