Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 3
Turley,
" The conviction of former President Donald Trump in Manhattan of 34 felonies produced citywide celebrations. This thrill-kill environment extended to the media, where former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace that it was “majestic day” and “a day to celebrate.” When I left the courthouse after watching the verdict come in, I was floored by the celebrations outside by both the public and some of the media.
The celebrants would be wise to think twice before mounting this trophy kill on the political wall. The Trump trial is a target-rich environment for an appeal, with multiple layers of reversible error, in my view.
I am less convinced by suggestions that the case could be challenged on the inability of Trump receiving a fair trial in a district that voted roughly 90 percent against him. The problem was not the jury, but the prosecutors and the judge.
Some of the most compelling problems can be divided into four groups."
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/03/buzz-kill-th...
No. of Recommendations: 4
I stopped reading Turley as he came across as a hit man. In the mosaic of items that can be brought up in appeals, they have to be enough to *seriously* point to something worth reversing the trial, or maybe taken in its entirety, and sending it back down. None of the items, including Stormy Daniels testimony seem to do that.
Turley writes to give you hope, but I'm analytical. So looking at the odds shows me the chances of an appeal working are slim, every slim - you need a glaringly huge mistake or the sum of a few mistakes to glare to bring the case down. It isn't there so far.
I'm not sure if it's true, but the NY appeals court it's headed to is all black women, so someone can have fun with that. Albaby will keep us posted. I sure am glad we have people like Albaby, Commonone, WTH, and the pinch hitters on this board.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Merchan allowed the jury to find that the secondary offense was any of the three vaguely defined options. Even on the jury form, they did not have to specify which of the crimes were found. Under Merchan’s instruction, the jury could have split 4-4-4 on what occurred in the case. They could have seen a conspiracy to conceal a federal election violation, falsification of business records or taxation violations. We will never know. Worse yet, Trump will never know.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the requirement of unanimity in criminal convictions is sacrosanct in our system. While there was unanimity that the business records were falsified to hide or further a second crime, there was no express finding of what that crime may have been. In some ways, Trump may have been fortunate by Merchan’s cavalier approach. Given that the jury convicted Trump across the board, they might have found all of three secondary crimes. The verdict form never asked for such specificity.
We'll see.
I think it extremely unlikely that Trump gets a fair trial anywhere in the state of New York. Given that this hackneyed scheme was predicated on supposed federal crimes, hopefully his lawyers come up with a way to appeal this through the federal system.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm not sure if it's true, but the NY appeals court it's headed to is all black women, so someone can have fun with that. Albaby will keep us posted.
Then again, the New York appeals court did overturn Harvey Weinstein’s sex crimes conviction and order a new trial.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Dope: I think it extremely unlikely that Trump gets a fair trial anywhere in the state of New York.
Ooohh, I think he did. You only needed one juror to disagree and there would have been some counts acquitted and possibly all counts. One juror said they did get news from Truth Social via X. Your idea of a fair trial is that it's never brought to trial because the prosecutor is a Trumpian.
The world doesn't have to conform to my thinking, I have to bring my thinking around to conform with the world. I'm allowed to imagine a better world, but I'd better be practical about the possibilities, pragmatic.
The prosecutors weren't devious and the judge wasn't against you, he put up with and dealt with real problems from Trump. I know that you know Trump is a criminal, but you want that part of him to do criminal things that you like. I don't want the law to be flouted frivolously, but I do recognize there are times when you have to disobey the law out of necessity. In fact I read a paper by Thomas Jefferson on it and he expressed my own thoughts better than I did. When life, liberty, and property are at stake there is no time to go through bureaucratic niceties, you must act quickly and decisively to save lives, etc. In circumstances such as those any reasonable person should say - the President broke the law, but with good reason, and we're glad he did and agree with his decision. We can argue later that the circumstances weren't dire enough, or the threat wasn't really there, but at the time, what was known? What was perceived?
A mockery is made of the law by people who think you can contrive reasons to do what you want. Justify flouting the law because you want to claiming flimsy pretext that is easily seen through. Let's stay away from the flimsy pretext until life, liberty , or property are on the line.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Then again, the New York appeals court did overturn Harvey Weinstein’s sex crimes conviction and order a new trial.
And Bragg knew about that during the conduct of the trial. I think Stormy Daniel's testimony directly related to the reason he was on trial.
"The state Court of Appeals overturned Weinstein's 23-year sentence in a 4-3 decision, saying “the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts” and permitted questions about Weinstein's “bad behavior” if he had testified."
No. of Recommendations: 14
I think it extremely unlikely that Trump gets a fair trial anywhere in the state of New York. Given that this hackneyed scheme was predicated on supposed federal crimes, hopefully his lawyers come up with a way to appeal this through the federal system.
An opinion that is not based on factual evidence.
He was convicted by a jury of his peers.
Trump not only got a fair trial, the judge bent over backwards to accommodate the petulant felon Trump.
Lock him up.
