╌>

Trump trial travesty

  
Via:  GregTx  •  one month ago  •  42 comments


Trump trial travesty
Trump Guilty: It is a dark day, not because of the guilty verdicts but because this trial has been a travesty from start to finish.

Leave a comment to auto-join group Today's America

Today's America


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


The term "kangaroo court" has seemed an apt and amusing term to apply to the trial of former President Donald Trump in Manhattan during the past month. But now that, for the first time in history, a former president has been found guilty of felony indictments, it cannot be regarded as anything other than a dark day for the nation. Jurors decided Trump was guilty on all 34 counts, carrying the possibility of more than 100 years of jail time for business record violations that occurred over a decade ago.

It is a dark day, not because of the guilty verdicts but because this trial has been a travesty from start to finish. It is clear, first of all, that no one other than Trump would have been charged in this way. No one other than Trump would have had a prosecutor concoct such an absurd and disgraceful list of charges and twist the law to do so. It is indisputable that no person has ever been prosecuted as a felon for the misdemeanor recordkeeping crimes as Trump was. It's odd, isn't it, that the only person ever so charged should be a former president, the much-hated opponent of the current incumbent, who is leading in the polls only five months before Election Day. The only reason Trump was charged and convicted of this crime is because he is Trump. This is what banana republics do.

Thursday's verdict is the culmination of a series of smaller menacing events that, when put together, constitute a severe threat to the rule of law in our democracy. A foreign billionaire bent on reimagining our entire justice system paid for the election of a radical prosecutor who explicitly ran on the promise of persecuting Trump. That case was put before a partisan judge who donated to President Joe Biden and whose daughter has profited from Biden's political career. That judge then rigged a jury, stacking the deck with absurd rulings and instructions, causing even liberal judicial observers to call into question the propriety of the proceedings.

All this took place in a city where the very same radical prosecutor lets repeat violent offenders off without any jail time, and Biden himself lets illegal immigrants run free.

What transpired Thursday isn't justice. It is election interference. It is a flagrant abuse of the criminal justice system for nakedly partisan purposes that will tarnish our democracy for a long time, perhaps permanently.

One must hope that this conviction will be overturned on appeal and that the process of appeal will be conducted with more fairness and probity than the original trial. We expect that Trump will ultimately be vindicated in this case, whether at the state Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court. It will show that our justice system is not dead yet.

But justice delayed is justice denied. And the appeals process means justice will be delayed and denied beyond the election. From now until then, Democrats will refer always to Trump as a "convicted felon." That is what the prosecutor went to work for, that is what the Democratic Party wanted, and that is what it got.

Severe damage has been inflicted on the democratic process. Using the justice system as a political weapon is an appalling turn for America. Make no mistake, this was nakedly partisan lawfare, and it has loosed a terrible precedent into our politics. More political prosecutions are on the way.

Till then, Democrats might want to remember the wisdom of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who told then-Nevada Democratic Sen. Harry Reid after he nuked the filibuster for judicial appointees, "You will regret this. You may regret this a lot sooner than you think."


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
1  seeder  GregTx    one month ago
It is indisputable that no person has ever been prosecuted as a felon for the misdemeanor recordkeeping crimes as Trump was. It's odd, isn't it, that the only person ever so charged should be a former president, the much-hated opponent of the current incumbent, who is leading in the polls only five months before Election Day. The only reason Trump was charged and convicted of this crime is because he is Trump. This is what banana republics do.
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  Tessylo    one month ago

The former 'president' is a criminal.  The gop sure loves their criminals.  

The reason the former 'president' was charged and convicted on these 34 criminal counts is because he is guilty. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @2    one month ago

Not as much as Democrats love theirs.

You can now throw the judge, DA, and prosecutor into the criminal pool.

And never forget the career criminal and traitor that Democrats have currently occupying the White House.

As for guilt. Every leftist needs to take a long hard look in the mirror. You made this country what it currently is- a shit hole.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.1  CB  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    one month ago

Sound and fury. That's all.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3  Sean Treacy    one month ago

I've seen a number of non delusional Trump haters recognize and admit  the many problems with this trial.  People who believe Trump should be convicted in other trials but still have principles beyond "Trump bad."  I wish there were more. 

This trial was a disaster from the indictment on. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    one month ago
I've seen a number of non delusional Trump haters recognize and admit  the many problems with this trial.

There are problems with every trial, your statement is nonsensical.  The level of any of those problems however are so minimal that they would not effect the outcome.

People who believe Trump should be convicted in other trials but still have principles beyond "Trump bad."  I wish there were more. 

Do you feel the same way about the other side?  Those that feel Trump should be allowed to break any law he choses?

This trial was a disaster from the indictment on.

This trial found a criminal defendant guilty by 12 independent jurors on the charges presented.  Just like juries have done for centuries.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1    one month ago
are problems with every trial, your statement is nonsensical.

What an idiotic claim.  

Start with the decision to prosecute:

In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign was fined $8,000 for violating federal campaign finance laws. Why? Her team falsely reported the funding of the Steele Dossier as “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting.” Actually this “opposition research” was an attempt to smear her opponent with false and salacious allegations. Obviously, it was also intended to influence the 2016 election. Moreover, Hillary’s campaign was headquartered in New York State (out of Brooklyn, NY), which would make it fall under the jurisdiction of New York Penal Law §175.10, the state law which makes it a felony to falsify business records with the intent to conceal the commission of a crime. What is the key distinction between Hillary’s campaign violation versus recent news? With Hillary’s violation, there wasn’t a Manhattan prosecutor politically motivated to bring an unprecedented case to trial.

when she's charged with dozens of felonies by Bragg I'll take this  seriously.  Otherise, it's just find the man and Bragg will find the crime 7 years later.

T hose that feel Trump should be allowed to break any law he choses?

Of course not. Don't know anyone who does.

  his t rial found a criminal defendant guilty by 12 independent jurors on the charges presented.  Just like juries have done for centuries .

No shit.  you know juries aren't infallible right, especially when misled by an activist judge...

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1    one month ago
This trial found a criminal defendant guilty by 12 independent jurors on the charges presented.

One of which was a trump supporter yet instead of voting to hang the jury, they voted guilty, weird how that works. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.2    one month ago

Who was the trump supporter? 


 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.1    one month ago
misled by an activist judge

Cite one actual instance of Judge Merchan misleading the jury.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.4    one month ago
ite one actual instance of Judge Merchan misleading the jury.

Let Michael cohen repeatedly tell the jury Trump committed a campaign finance violation and refused, of course, to allow an actual expert on the subject to rebut Cohen's testimony.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.5    one month ago
Judge in Trump’s hush money trial did not bar campaign finance expert from testifying for defense

CLAIM: New York Judge Juan M. Merchan wouldn’t let the defense call campaign finance expert Bradley A. Smith to testify in former President Donald Trump’s   hush money trial .

THE FACTS: Merchan did not bar Smith from testifying. Trump’s legal team chose to not call on him after the judge on Monday declined to broaden the scope of questioning the defense could pursue. The ruling echoed his pretrial ruling on the matter. Social media users misrepresented Merchan’s ruling, repeating a statement Trump made that Smith, a law professor and former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, was not being allowed to take the stand.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.6    one month ago
rump’s legal team chose to not call on him after the judge on Monday declined to broaden the scope of questioning the defense could pursue

Well then...

he problem for Trump  is that Judge Juan Merchan does not want to hear from Smith. Early on, Merchan barred Smith from testifying about virtually anything that had anything to do with the Trump case. He barred Smith from testifying about the campaign finance laws at the heart of Bragg’s charges against Trump. He barred Smith from testifying about anything except general facts about the job of the FEC or the definition of some common campaign terms. In the end, the Trump team decided it was not worth calling Smith to testify under what amounted to a judicial gag order.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.5    one month ago

The charges relate to secret payments Cohen facilitated to two women during the presidential election campaign in 2016, to keep them from disclosing their affairs with Donald Trump.  One of the women was the adult film actress Stephanie Clifford, who works under the name Stormy Daniels.  She was paid $130,000.  The other woman was the model Karen McDougal; she received $150,000.  The payment to Karen McDougal came from the National Enquirer, with Cohen’s encouragement and assistance.  Cohen paid Clifford himself, and then got disguised reimbursements from the Trump Organization.
In effect, the payments to Stephanie Clifford and Karen McDougal were contributions to Donald Trump’s campaign:  they were hush money designed to help Donald Trump get elected.  And that violated campaign finance laws, because corporations aren’t allowed to contribute directly to presidential campaigns, and individuals can’t contribute more than $2,700.
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.8    one month ago

Uh... Tell the FEC, the experts with actual  jurisdiction, who already investigated the case and declined to press charges against Trump.

The Judge didn't want an actual expert explaining why Trump was not charged. He just let Cohen, a perjuring criminal, testify about it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.9    one month ago

You pretend as though you have certain knowledge of what took place behind the scenes.   You do not.   All one can do is speculate.

Here is analysis on this topic.   It is informed speculation, but speculation nonetheless:

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3.1.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.9    one month ago

"Declined to press charges" doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime.

In fact, they found that he likely was in violation:

We intend to seek this information voluntarily, but recommend that the Commission
8 approve the use of compulsory process as necessary.
9 V.

RECOMMENDATIONS

...

1. Find reason to believe that Michael D. Cohen knowingly and willfully violated
12 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(A) by making excessive contributions;
13 2. Find reason to believe that Michael D. Cohen knowingly and willfully violated
14 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by making a contribution in the name of another;
15 3. Find reason to believe that Donald J. Trump knowingly and willfully violated
16 52 U.S.C. § 30116(f) by knowingly accepting excessive contributions from Michael
17 D. Cohen;
18 4. Find reason to believe that Donald J. Trump knowingly and willfully violated
19 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by knowingly accepting a contribution in the name of another;
20 5. Find reason to believe that Donald J. Trump knowingly and willfully violated
21 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a) by knowingly accepting a corporate contribution from the
22 Trump Organization OR knowingly and willfully violated 52 U.S.C. § 30116(f) by
23 knowingly accepting an excessive contribution from the Trump Organization;
24 6. Find reason to believe that Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., and Bradley T.
25 Crate in his official capacity as treasurer knowingly and willfully violated 52 U.S.C.
26 § 30104(b) and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(a) and (b) by filing false disclosure reports with
27 the Commission;
28 7. Find reason to believe that Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., and Bradley T.
29 Crate in his official capacity as treasurer knowingly and willfully violated 52 U.S.C.
30 § 30116(f) by knowingly accepting excessive contributions from Michael D.
31 Cohen;
1 8. Find reason to believe that Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., and Bradley T.
2 Crate in his official capacity as treasurer knowingly and willfully violated 52 U.S.C.
3 § 30122 by knowingly accepting a contribution in the name of another;
4 9. Find reason to believe that Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., and Bradley T.
5 Crate in his official capacity as treasurer knowingly and willfully violated 52 U.S.C.
6 § 30118(a) by knowingly accepting a corporate contribution from the Trump
7 Organization OR knowingly and willfully violated 52 U.S.C. § 30116(f) by
8 knowingly accepting an excessive contribution from the Trump Organization;
9 10. Find reason to believe that Trump Organization, LLC, knowingly and willfully
10 violated 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a) by making a corporate contribution OR knowingly
11 and willfully violated 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(A) by making an excessive
12 contribution; 

But further actions on those findings and recommendations got bogged down in committee.

Given these facts, the Commission’s Office of the General Counsel (“OGC”) recommended
finding reason to believe that Cohen and the Trump Organization made, and Trump and Donald J.
Trump for President, Inc. (the “Committee”) accepted and failed to report, illegal contributions.15
The Act prohibits making, or knowingly accepting, a campaign contribution in excess of the
contribution limits set forth under the Act.16 In 2016, the inflation-adjusted contribution limit for an
individual was $2,700 per election.17 The Act defines a “contribution” as, in relevant part, anything
of value made “for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office[.]”18 Under oath,
Cohen admitted to making the payment for just that purpose.19 It appears clear that he made an
illegal contribution. However, because he was criminally prosecuted for the same conduct at issue
in these matters, we did not support authorizing an investigation into the allegations against Cohen.
We agreed with our colleagues who wrote that the Commission’s interests were vindicated as to
Cohen,20 and therefore did not move to support a reason to believe finding for Cohen.

Where we disagreed with those colleagues was in their decision to dismiss the remaining
allegations.21 Their Statement of Reasons is notably devoid of any explanation that specifically
addresses their votes to dismiss the allegations against Trump, the Committee, and the Trump
Organization. We voted to support OGC’s recommendations to find reason to believe that Trump
and the Committee knowingly and willfully accepted an excessive contribution from Cohen and a
prohibited corporate or excessive contribution from the Trump Organization, that the Committee
knowingly and willfully filed false disclosure reports, and that the Trump Organization knowingly
and willfully made a corporate or excessive contribution through its reimbursements to Cohen.
There is ample evidence in the record to support the finding that Trump and the Committee knew
of, and nonetheless accepted, the illegal contributions at issue here. Indeed, Cohen provided
testimony under penalty of perjury that Trump not only knew about the payment but himself
directed Cohen to orchestrate the scheme. And the Commission’s interests in seeing the law
enforced with respect to Trump, the Committee, and the Trump Organization have in no way been
vindicated.
Despite Trump’s apparent role in the transaction, the Trump Committee argues in its
response to the complaints that there was no violation because the payment to Clifford alleged in
the complaints was not campaign-related and therefore not an impermissible contribution.22 To
conclude that a payment, made 13 days before Election Day to hush up a suddenly newsworthy 10-
year-old story, was not campaign-related, without so much as conducting an investigation, defies
reality. But putting that aside, Cohen testified under oath that he made the payment for the principal
purpose of influencing the election. This more than satisfies the Commission’s “reason to believe”
standard to authorize an investigation.2
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.9    one month ago

Here's a thread smith laid out today explaining how nonsensical the prosecution's theory is. 

M. Cohen testified that Trump wanted to keep Daniels allegations under wraps until after the election. Prosecutors claim they therefore illegally did not report the campaign expenditure, and by doing so intended to, and did, have "the purpose of influencing an election.

Presidential campaigns file monthly reports with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). These are filed on the 20th of each month, and cover expenditures and contributions for the prior month. So in 2016, the Sep. report was filed 9/20, and covered expenditures made in August.

The Oct. report was filed 10/20, reporting expenditures made in September. But after the October monthly report, the schedule changes. 12 days before the election, campaigns file a Pre-Election Report, covering expenditures up to 20 days before the election. In 2016, the Pre-election Report was filed on October 27, covering expenditures made only through Oct. 19. The payment to Daniels was made on Oct. 27. So the payment would not have been reported on the Pre-election report.

  The next report is the Post-Election Report. This covers expenditures made from 20 days before the election until 20 days after the election, and is filed 10 days after that. So this was the 1st report that would have included any expenditure to Cohen for paying Daniels. In 2016, the Post-Election Report was required to be filed on December 8, one month after the election. So the prosecution's theory, that Trump wanted to hide the expenditure until after the election, makes no sense at all.

Even if we assume, incorrectly, that it was a campaign expenditure, it wouldn't have been reported until 30 days after the election. But again, none of this got to the jury, either through testimony or the judge's instruction

There was no illegal contribution or expenditure made, and no failure to report an expenditure. And even if we assume otherwise, the prosecution's theory made no sense, suggesting no criminal intent. Im not a criminal law guy. But I do know campaign finance law. The failure to properly instruct the jury on the law would seem to be reversible error.

Even if you believe this was a campaign finance violation, the reporting timeline makes it impossible for the violation to have effected the 2016 election.  Time exists and the prosecution had to literally ignore how it works to create their theory. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.11    one month ago

Nice of you to do cite the losing argument instead of the actual finding. . 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3.1.14  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.13    one month ago

I cited the finding, and the letter of dissent from members of the committee that declined to take action against Trump, and calling out the dishonesty of the member who voted against taking action.  And you know that.

At this point, you're hanging your argument over when the payments were made, rather than whether they were illegal, which they were, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.  That's grasping at straws.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.14    one month ago
're hanging your argument over when the payments were made, rather than whether they were illegal, which they were, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.  That's grasping at straws.

 Not at all. Timing is just one of the many flaws.  The prosecution's entire cases hinges on timing.  The point is that even if you accept everything and every theory  the prosecution needs to be true to be true,  the bookkepeing choice  could not have had any effect on the 2016 election.   It's literally impossible for a report that didn't have to made public until  2017 to affect something that happened in 2016. 

, which they were, your assertions to the contrary

Lol. So now you are okay with ignoring final determinations by the legal system. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3.1.16  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.15    one month ago

The concealment of the payments isn't the issue, Sean.  The fact that they were made is.  They were illegal.

So now you are okay with ignoring final determinations by the legal system. 

That is just all kinds of ironic.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.17  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.15    one month ago

At Trump's appeal he might use some of your arguments...

If Trump didn't want to do the time then he shouldn't have done the crime. Trump broke laws that were on the books!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
3.1.18  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.5    one month ago

Neither of those, even if true, would constitute Judge Merchan misleading the jury.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.19  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.1    one month ago
are problems with every trial, your statement is nonsensical.
What an idiotic claim.  

What a stupid reply.  If there were no problems in trials, there would be no objections or appeals.  DUH!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    one month ago

Who?  What problems?  maga and the former 'president' have no principles or standards or morals

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    one month ago

The travesty is all the people in this country who will not admit that Trump is the most unfit person to be president of the United States we have ever seen, and insist on trying to cram this travesty down the rest of our throats. Thats the fucking travesty. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4    one month ago
What is the key distinction between Hillary’s campaign violation versus recent news? With Hillary’s violation, there wasn’t a Manhattan prosecutor politically motivated to bring an unprecedented case to trial.

Alvin Bragg's and Merchan's  brand of partisan justice is going to alot more damage to the country than Trump in the long run.

Trump just wants to sit in the White House, eat cheeseburgers and be popular. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
4.1.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1    one month ago

Project 2025…

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1    one month ago

What the fuck?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  afrayedknot @4.1.1    one month ago
roject 2025…

Is that the new boogyman? 

The problem you have is he was actually President and all of the previous doomerism amounted to nothing. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1    one month ago

Fuck Trump and all his fans and excuse makers. I'm done being nice about all this. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1    one month ago
Alvin Bragg's and Merchan's  brand of partisan justice is going to alot more damage to the country than Trump in the long run.

Right wing media lies and conspiracy bullshit have done more damage to this country in the past 20 years than anyone could imagine or fear.

We have tens of millions of idiots running around in red hats. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.3    one month ago
The problem you have is he was actually President and all of the previous doomerism amounted to nothing. 

Yeah all he has done is turn American politics and public life into an endless evil clown show. Fucking malignant narcissists should not be running the country. Get that through your head.  You think things are "divided" now? Put that asshole back in office and see what happens. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.7  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.3    one month ago

If it escapes your notice "Project 2025" is future not past. And, for that reason, some will call 2016-2020 acquiring experience.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
4.1.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @4.1.7    one month ago

Huh?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
4.1.9  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1    one month ago
Trump just wants to sit in the White House, eat cheeseburgers and be popular.

Or, he could sit in Supermax, eat ultra-processed, starchy prison food, and, of course, be very popular with the other inmates.  Either way, I bet he would be as happy as a pig in shit.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
4.1.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.9    one month ago

Are you in favor of our Supermax prison system?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.9    one month ago

What noble aspirations!

What the huh?????????????????????????????

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5  Tacos!    one month ago

Jesus, what a load of shit!

carrying the possibility of more than 100 years of jail time

That is not true. The maximum he would do is 4 years. That has been well established for a long time.

for business record violations that occurred

This writer seems to be conceding that the violations did, in fact, take place. Freudian slip?

over a decade ago.

Well, no, not really. The deal to pay Stormy Daniels was, apparently, only negotiated in 2016. Payments came after and fraudulent business records, as well. The real issue would not be the time, but rather the Statute of Limitations. It has already been settled that the SOL was not violated. Even so, if we got to a point beyond the initial dates of violations, the SOL can toll (the clock stops ticking) for several reasons. A first reason is the immunity to indictment for a sitting president. A second reason is that the defendant was not continuously present in the jurisdiction. His official home has been Florida since 2019. In short, New York was well within its rights to prosecute with regard to the timing.

no one other than Trump would have been charged in this way

Nonsense. In 2022, Trump’s own CFO pled guilty to charges that were constructed in just the same way. The exact same charge, in fact. The very fact that New York has written the statute allowing for this structure in the charges shows what a silly claim this is.

It is indisputable that no person has ever been prosecuted as a felon for the misdemeanor recordkeeping crimes as Trump was.

As I think I have just covered, this is 100% false. It ceases to be a misdemeanor and becomes a felony when the records are falsified to cover up some other crime. It says so in the statute.

a radical prosecutor who explicitly ran on the promise of persecuting Trump

Actually, the investigation began under the previous DA, and Bragg was actually criticized for being slow to bring charges.

That case was put before a partisan judge who donated to President Joe Biden

This is technically true. Judge Merchan donated $15 to the Biden campaign in 2020.

No, that’s not a typo. He donated FIFTEEN dollars. Yeah, that’s some first rate corruption, right there. /s

and whose daughter has profited from Biden's political career

Yeah, so the daughter works for a Democratic campaign organization. The judge sought the guidance of the court ethics committee, which advised him that this did not represent a conflict, and there was no need for him to recuse himself.

That judge then rigged a jury

HOW???? Fucking HOW?! How the fuck did the judge RIG the jury? It’s a random pool of people - and most of the time those people are looking for a way to go home so they don’t have to do jury duty. Defense counsel was able to talk to all of them, and dismiss the ones they didn’t like. How the actual fuck is that rigged?

But justice delayed is justice denied.

I’m pretty sure Trump does more than the state to delay his trials. Of course, now that he’s been convicted, his worshippers are in a big hurry for the appeal.

Using the justice system as a political weapon is an appalling turn for America.

I wouldn’t like that either. How about threatening to use it that way?

“If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your (missing email) situation,” Trump said, “because there has never been so many lies, so much deception.” - Trump debating Clinton in 2016.
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @5    one month ago

"because there has never been so many lies, so much deception,"

every utterance is a confession

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @5.1    one month ago

every accusation, every rant, everything, just about everything he says, is a confession

 
 

Who is online





40 visitors