In reply to aggiehawg
Do they just make up the rules of law as they go in NY?
12:22p, 4/23/24
In reply to Im Gipper
These two sets of counsel hate each other at this point and it will become even more contentious as this wears on. Merchan wanted this three ring circus, a bit late to put a stop to it, barring declaring a mistrial or dismissing it altogether. The state's case is a clowncar at this point.
He needs to clarify that as trying to mind read Merchan is tricky at best. Besides, Merchan can rule without a sidebar by just saying sustained or overruled immediately. If he needs to hear from the other side, then he calls them up for a sidebar.Im Gipper said:
I'd say it likely means just state the objection and not start argument. Fairly standard instruction.
These two sets of counsel hate each other at this point and it will become even more contentious as this wears on. Merchan wanted this three ring circus, a bit late to put a stop to it, barring declaring a mistrial or dismissing it altogether. The state's case is a clowncar at this point.
12:25p, 4/23/24
So it was a hearsay objection. i was correct on that. Was Pecker the custodian of the business records? Could he authenticate them? Going to have to read the transcript on that exchange once it is released.Quote:
Following the sidebar, documents are accepted into evidence over the Trump team's objection.
"Objection noted and overruled," Judge Juan Merchan says, noting that any embedded hearsay issues will be dealt with as they move through the documents.
12:28p, 4/23/24
LOL. Was that something the Enquirer did often? Administer polygraph tests?Quote:
Witness David Pecker started to say on the stand that they discussed having Dino Sajudin, a former Trump Tower doorman, take a polygraph test but prosecutor Joshua Steinglass quickly cut him off.
"What you were about to say, don't say that," Steinglass said.
The judge previously ruled polygraph information could not come into evidence.
Steinglass again told Pecker not to discuss any results of the polygraph test Sajudin took.
12:28p, 4/23/24
In reply to Im Gipper
Yeah speaking objections are generally a no-noIm Gipper said:
I'd say it likely means just state the objection and not start argument. Fairly standard instruction.
12:31p, 4/23/24
Lord have mercy, they giving Trump's doorman a polygraph test.Quote:
they discussed having Dino Sajudin, a former Trump Tower doorman, take a polygraph test
12:34p, 4/23/24
In reply to aggiehawg
I'm Gipper
Is there any indication the lawyers in the courtroom didn't understand what he said or meant? Going by a blogger, while interesting, isn't exactly a detailed record.Quote:
He needs to clarify that as trying to mind read Merchan is tricky at best.
I'm Gipper
12:35p, 4/23/24
In reply to GeorgiAg
I am not sure the sidebars are being taken down by the court reporter? Are they?
Unless there is a need to make a record for purposes of appeal. Lawyers sometimes have to take a bullet for their clients.GeorgiAg said:Yeah speaking objections are generally a no-noIm Gipper said:
I'd say it likely means just state the objection and not start argument. Fairly standard instruction.
I am not sure the sidebars are being taken down by the court reporter? Are they?
12:38p, 4/23/24
In reply to aggiehawg
Some courts never want the sidebars documented and others seem to enjoy it.
Depends upon the court and the reporter in my experience.aggiehawg said:Unless there is a need to make a record for purposes of appeal. Lawyers sometimes have to take a bullet for their clients.GeorgiAg said:Yeah speaking objections are generally a no-noIm Gipper said:
I'd say it likely means just state the objection and not start argument. Fairly standard instruction.
I am not sure the sidebars are being taken down by the court reporter? Are they?
Some courts never want the sidebars documented and others seem to enjoy it.
12:54p, 4/23/24
In reply to Im Gipper
Isn't that the law where the SoL has already passed?Im Gipper said:
Interesting:During the arguments, the DA's Office signposts that New York Election Law 17-152, which prohibits conspiracies to promote the election of a specific candidate through unlawful means, is the crime that Trump was intending to commit or conceal.
— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) April 23, 2024
Sounds super duper serious!Quote:
17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
We definitely need to lock up the presumptive GOP nominee for President for this terrible act. /s
12:54p, 4/23/24
In reply to Troy91
Was watching an excerpt of a trial last week where a state judge went off of the rails because a trial was taking too long and the prosecution had not finished their case in chief. The lead detective was still on the stand and the defense got up to cross him only the judge ordered her to keep her cross to five minutes and five minutes only. (Denial of due process of course.) Defense counsel objected earning a tongue lashing from the judge but she persisted and kept stating she needed to make a record of her objection and exception to the judge's ruling.
Finally the judge said, "Fine. Court reporter and clerk are here, make it," then stormed off of the bench disappearing into his chambers. Quite bizarre behavior by the judge but defense counsel had to do her job and take that bullet for her client.
That has been my observation as well. If the sidebars are not being recorded to become part of the transcript, that's a potential waiver for an objection by not making a record. If there is no record being made of the sidebar, they have to say it in open court to preserve the record, even if the judge gets pissed off. That's the lawyers job to represent their clients.Troy91 said:Depends upon the court and the reporter in my experience.aggiehawg said:Unless there is a need to make a record for purposes of appeal. Lawyers sometimes have to take a bullet for their clients.GeorgiAg said:Yeah speaking objections are generally a no-noIm Gipper said:
I'd say it likely means just state the objection and not start argument. Fairly standard instruction.
I am not sure the sidebars are being taken down by the court reporter? Are they?
Some courts never want the sidebars documented and others seem to enjoy it.
Was watching an excerpt of a trial last week where a state judge went off of the rails because a trial was taking too long and the prosecution had not finished their case in chief. The lead detective was still on the stand and the defense got up to cross him only the judge ordered her to keep her cross to five minutes and five minutes only. (Denial of due process of course.) Defense counsel objected earning a tongue lashing from the judge but she persisted and kept stating she needed to make a record of her objection and exception to the judge's ruling.
Finally the judge said, "Fine. Court reporter and clerk are here, make it," then stormed off of the bench disappearing into his chambers. Quite bizarre behavior by the judge but defense counsel had to do her job and take that bullet for her client.
12:58p, 4/23/24
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman
Anyone and everyone who dares associate with Trump being dragged before the man. Driver, low level assistants, the doorman at Trump Tower, even legal counsel. When in history have we seen anything like this?Stat Monitor Repairman said:Lord have mercy, they giving Trump's doorman a polygraph test.Quote:
they discussed having Dino Sajudin, a former Trump Tower doorman, take a polygraph test
1:05p, 4/23/24
Quote:
Testimony wraps for the day
Court is done with testimony for the day. The jury is getting instructions before they are let out.
David Pecker testified for a little more than two hours today.
1:10p, 4/23/24
What is the conspiracy? Is it illegal for Trump to have worked with a publication to push positive stories and quell negative ones to help his image? Seems that goes on all the time with Democrats and their ties to the MSM which is likely much more serious given the supposed credibility of the MSM vs the National Enquirer.Quote:
"The entire case is predicated on the idea that there was a conspiracy to influence the election in 2016," Steinglass tells the judge.
Just a complete abortion of justice this case.
1:25p, 4/23/24
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman
It was Pecker wanting to have the polygraph done, not the state.
Stat Monitor Repairman said:Anyone and everyone who dares associate with Trump being dragged before the man. Driver, low level assistants, the doorman at Trump Tower, even legal counsel. When in history have we seen anything like this?Stat Monitor Repairman said:Lord have mercy, they giving Trump's doorman a polygraph test.Quote:
they discussed having Dino Sajudin, a former Trump Tower doorman, take a polygraph test
It was Pecker wanting to have the polygraph done, not the state.
1:40p, 4/23/24
In reply to aggiehawg
The little bit I read about this this judge is an absolute piece of crap. Very biased already decided how he wants this trial to go. He's no better than that other goofy judge.
Absolutely disgusting what's become of the American judicial system.
Absolutely disgusting what's become of the American judicial system.
1:43p, 4/23/24
In reply to 4stringAg
This case along with the other two should've never come to trial. And they wouldn't have on anyone else. It's absolutely disgusting.
4stringAg said:What is the conspiracy? Is it illegal for Trump to have worked with a publication to push positive stories and quell negative ones to help his image? Seems that goes on all the time with Democrats and their ties to the MSM which is likely much more serious given the supposed credibility of the MSM vs the National Enquirer.Quote:
"The entire case is predicated on the idea that there was a conspiracy to influence the election in 2016," Steinglass tells the judge.
Just a complete abortion of justice this case.
This case along with the other two should've never come to trial. And they wouldn't have on anyone else. It's absolutely disgusting.
1:44p, 4/23/24
In reply to Science Denier
I think if anything it'll make more people vote for Trump, even though they might not have to begin with. The ones that aren't gonna vote for him we're already not going to vote for him.
These trials and especially this one are a new level of bull**** and even some non-people are starting to see that.
Science Denier said:Gyles Marrett said:Here's why I don't believe that....explain how his support in the polls went up with indictments, yet somehow we are supposed to believe those that increased supporting him for being indicted would then take that support back if convicted of those indictments. Doesn't pass the logic test.Science Denier said:Im Gipper said:Do you have a link to that poll? Very interesting! Most polls I have seen show most think this is a political witch hunt.Quote:
Polls show that if he's convicted many that would vote for him won't. It's a huge issue.
A very quick search shows this one. There are many more
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4441241-trump-poll-convictions-deep-trouble/amp/
Convictions are different than indictments. There are people that that believe in the courts to judge BS indictments that are later overturned and those that lead in convictions.
Doesn't matter to me, but it does to others.
I think if anything it'll make more people vote for Trump, even though they might not have to begin with. The ones that aren't gonna vote for him we're already not going to vote for him.
These trials and especially this one are a new level of bull**** and even some non-people are starting to see that.
1:52p, 4/23/24
Hmm. Interesting argument.Quote:
Trump is charged under New York's Public Law Art. 175.10 and 175.05, which states that "[a] person is guilty of falsifying business records . . . when, with intent to defraud, he . . . [m]akes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise." Trump's alleged wrongful conduct arose from working with his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to pay "hush money" to Stormy Daniels.
District Attorney Alvin Bragg's argument for Trump's guilt is as follows: Trump caused records pertaining to the "hush money" payment, e.g., invoices, checks, ledgers, etc., which were falsely marked "legal payment," to be maintained in the Trump Organization's ("TO") business records, thus he made false entries in the TO's business records.
Trump's defense, by contrast, argues that the records at issue were not "business records" of the TO because: 1) Trump's payments to Cohen were made from personal or trust accounts and, hence, involved private records; and 2) the records were, unlike accounting books, not held to reflect the TO's "condition or activity" and, accordingly, did not constitute "business records" under the statute.
It isn't? Why not?Quote:
Judge Juan Merchan, the presiding judge, has sided with Bragg. According to Merchan, the fact that Trump's checking records were "personal . . . and not the books and records of a business entity is of no legal consequence."
Quote:
Merchan reasoned that "[Trump] and the Trump Organization are intertwined to such a degree that it is of no legal relevance" that Trump made payments from personal funds. Merchan suggested that Trump's personal and trust records "became" TO records once they were scanned into the corporate records system.
Whether Cohen's invoices and Trump's checking documents "became" TO records, in my judgment, is of little significance as to whether Trump violated Art. 175.10. There is a much clearer answer as to why Trump is innocent of the charges against him. Let me explain.
Quote:
Let's return to the statutory language: "A person is guilty of falsifying business records . . . when . . . he . . . [m]akes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise." I have emphasized two words in the statute "entry" and "the"because Trump's team has yet to raise the exculpatory impact of these words. The word "entry" is a noun that means, per the Oxford Dictionary, "an item written or printed in a diary, list, ledger or reference book."
In accounting parlance, an "entry" is "the record of any transaction found in a bookkeeper's journal."
The statute at issue, notably, penalizes a false "entry" made "in" a "business record," which is defined as "any writing or article [or computerized data] . . . kept . . . for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting [a business's] condition or activity."
In short, as used in Art. 175.10, the term "entry" literally means a written or typed-in item added to paper or computer records. An obvious example of "making" a "false entry" is where an accountant inputs phony deductions in a corporation's QuickBooks account.
.Quote:
The Indictment
Trump faces 11 counts alone based upon Cohen emailing invoices to the TO on various dates in 2017. These counts allege that Trump "made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen . . . marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization." Notably, the "to wit" language in the indictment serves to limit the prosecution's allegations, i.e., that the "false entry" in the TO's records was Cohen's invoice itself.
LINK
Pretty much in the weeds there but as a matter of statutory construction as appled to these facts not a bad argument.
2:13p, 4/23/24
McCarthy's take:
Quote:
Well, sure, the media-Democrat complex loves the salacious overtones of that spin. But that's not the real reason. If Trump had robbed a bank or, as he once famously put it, shot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight, we'd be talking about Trump's bank robbery trial or his murder trial. That is, we'd be talking about the crime.
Quote:
But more to the point, Bragg's elaboration of Trump's supposed criminal scheme laid out in a Statement of Facts, so-called, that he penned and published when the indictment was unsealed elucidates that what he is accusing Trump of is not a criminal conspiracy.
LINKQuote:
n its curtain-raiser, the Democrats' house organ, the New York Times, tells readers that in their opening statement, "Prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney's office are expected to say that Mr. Trump orchestrated a scheme to suppress stories that could have damaged his 2016 campaign."
That's probably right. There's just one tiny glitch: It is not a crime to suppress damaging information.
Politicians do that habitually. The Clintons and their cronies notoriously ran a "bimbo eruption" war room in the lead-up to Bill's 1992 election, squelching revelations by women who credibly claimed to have had trysts with the then-Arkansas governor.
Come to think of it, who among us doesn't have some skeletons we'd prefer were left in the closet? Unless there is a legal obligation to disclose, it is not a crime to suppress embarrassing details.
2:20p, 4/23/24
At what point does the defense get to say that there is no evidence of a crime?
Do they have to wait for the prosecution to rest?
Do they have to wait for the prosecution to rest?
2:22p, 4/23/24
Now Byron York:
So even the opinions of legal analysts violates the gag order if Trump made reference to them on Truth Social?
LINKQuote:
An example Conroy gave was on Truth Social, in which Trump posted a link to an April 2023 article by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy that appeared in National Review. The headline of the article was "No, Cohen's Guilty Plea Does Not Prove Trump Committed Campaign-Finance Crimes," and the subheadline was "Unpacking a weak argument for Alvin Bragg's weak case against the former president." The story was legal analysis, pure and simple persuasive legal analysis, at that and yet Merchan has forbidden Trump from citing it and has threatened Trump with fines or even jail for pointing it out.
Another example of an alleged Trump gag order violation was his reposting of a New York Post
column by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. The headline was, "A serial perjurer will try to prove an old misdemeanor against Trump in an embarrassment for the New York legal system." The "serial perjurer" referred to Cohen unfortunately for Cohen, that's an accurate description and Turley wrote that Bragg's prosecutors have used Cohen "to convert a dead state misdemeanor into a felony based on an alleged federal election crime that was rejected by the Justice Department," which is also accurate.
So even the opinions of legal analysts violates the gag order if Trump made reference to them on Truth Social?
2:22p, 4/23/24
In reply to annie88
Interesting take, but people who support Biden were always going to vote Biden. What you have is folks who USED to support Trump, but don't anymore. If you think this trial is helping Trump, you're delusional. He paid Stormy Daniels, lied about it verbally and in his books. Orchestrated the National Inquirer articles with the help of Pecker and Cohen......and you think all of that is going to draw more support?? WOW.annie88 said:Science Denier said:Gyles Marrett said:Here's why I don't believe that....explain how his support in the polls went up with indictments, yet somehow we are supposed to believe those that increased supporting him for being indicted would then take that support back if convicted of those indictments. Doesn't pass the logic test.Science Denier said:Im Gipper said:Do you have a link to that poll? Very interesting! Most polls I have seen show most think this is a political witch hunt.Quote:
Polls show that if he's convicted many that would vote for him won't. It's a huge issue.
A very quick search shows this one. There are many more
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4441241-trump-poll-convictions-deep-trouble/amp/
Convictions are different than indictments. There are people that that believe in the courts to judge BS indictments that are later overturned and those that lead in convictions.
Doesn't matter to me, but it does to others.
I think if anything it'll make more people vote for Trump, even though they might not have to begin with. The ones that aren't gonna vote for him we're already not going to vote for him.
These trials and especially this one are a new level of bull**** and even some non-people are starting to see that.
2:24p, 4/23/24
In reply to annie88
This conviction won't make any difference with the voters. They expect it. They also know it won't hold when appealed all the way up.
annie88 said:Science Denier said:Gyles Marrett said:Here's why I don't believe that....explain how his support in the polls went up with indictments, yet somehow we are supposed to believe those that increased supporting him for being indicted would then take that support back if convicted of those indictments. Doesn't pass the logic test.Science Denier said:Im Gipper said:Do you have a link to that poll? Very interesting! Most polls I have seen show most think this is a political witch hunt.Quote:
Polls show that if he's convicted many that would vote for him won't. It's a huge issue.
A very quick search shows this one. There are many more
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4441241-trump-poll-convictions-deep-trouble/amp/
Convictions are different than indictments. There are people that that believe in the courts to judge BS indictments that are later overturned and those that lead in convictions.
Doesn't matter to me, but it does to others.
I think if anything it'll make more people vote for Trump, even though they might not have to begin with. The ones that aren't gonna vote for him we're already not going to vote for him.
These trials and especially this one are a new level of bull**** and even some non-people are starting to see that.
This conviction won't make any difference with the voters. They expect it. They also know it won't hold when appealed all the way up.
2:33p, 4/23/24
In reply to Opalka
and again, FYI indictment for those things gained support for him...
So glad you said that bc you prove a huge point....No it's not those things that will gain support. It's the fact that none of what you described is illegal and an activist justice system going after him to throw him in prison for it so he can't run is what people have issue with and gains him support. Morally terrible? yes. Lose your right to speak and get thrown in jail? NoOpalka said:Interesting take, but people who support Biden were always going to vote Biden. What you have is folks who USED to support Trump, but don't anymore. If you think this trial is helping Trump, you're delusional. He paid Stormy Daniels, lied about it verbally and in his books. Orchestrated the National Inquirer articles with the help of Pecker and Cohen......and you think all of that is going to draw more support?? WOW.annie88 said:Science Denier said:Gyles Marrett said:Here's why I don't believe that....explain how his support in the polls went up with indictments, yet somehow we are supposed to believe those that increased supporting him for being indicted would then take that support back if convicted of those indictments. Doesn't pass the logic test.Science Denier said:Im Gipper said:Do you have a link to that poll? Very interesting! Most polls I have seen show most think this is a political witch hunt.Quote:
Polls show that if he's convicted many that would vote for him won't. It's a huge issue.
A very quick search shows this one. There are many more
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4441241-trump-poll-convictions-deep-trouble/amp/
Convictions are different than indictments. There are people that that believe in the courts to judge BS indictments that are later overturned and those that lead in convictions.
Doesn't matter to me, but it does to others.
I think if anything it'll make more people vote for Trump, even though they might not have to begin with. The ones that aren't gonna vote for him we're already not going to vote for him.
These trials and especially this one are a new level of bull**** and even some non-people are starting to see that.
and again, FYI indictment for those things gained support for him...
2:35p, 4/23/24
And I try not to judge anyone's morals, especially without personal knowledge of all the facts
2:46p, 4/23/24
In reply to TexAg1987
Now that we are in the evidentiary portion of the trial, neither counsel can make any argument before the jury. Their only job is to examine witnesses and other evidence. Once both sides have rested and the evidentiary portion is closed, then both sides can make closing arguments.
Now, that applies to actions in front of the jury. Defense can still make motions such as fora directed verdict after the close of the state's case in chief directed towards the failure of proof in the state's case but that argument is before the judge only. (And before this judge, falling on deaf ears but need to preserve the record for appeal.)
Cannot call for a legal conclusion from a witness, unless I guess they have been qualified as an expert witness and even then, unlikely to be allowed.TexAg1987 said:
At what point does the defense get to say that there is no evidence of a crime?
Do they have to wait for the prosecution to rest?
Now that we are in the evidentiary portion of the trial, neither counsel can make any argument before the jury. Their only job is to examine witnesses and other evidence. Once both sides have rested and the evidentiary portion is closed, then both sides can make closing arguments.
Now, that applies to actions in front of the jury. Defense can still make motions such as fora directed verdict after the close of the state's case in chief directed towards the failure of proof in the state's case but that argument is before the judge only. (And before this judge, falling on deaf ears but need to preserve the record for appeal.)
2:48p, 4/23/24
In reply to aggiehawg
We always assumed that Bragg was relying on some unnamed federal crime to bootstrap his misdemeanor charges against Trump onto in order to make them felonious...thereby providing the justification to extend the statute of limitiations on the allegations.
But now it is revealed that no, it isn't a federal statute that they are relying upon. Rather, it is a New York state election statute. So among the snakes in Pandora's Box now opened:
Merchan is pretty ballsy to tell Trump's attorney that he has little crediblity in his court. Especially when Merchan's credibility as a judge is definitely on trial here as well.
(Random thought: Since it's so obvious that we're making crap up as we go in this prosecution, what's to keep another state's AG, such as Paxton, from filing a federal lawsuit against the State of New York for conspiracy and election interference - ie. interfering in a campaign with national implications, as this trial itself is being increasingly revealed as nothing more than election interference? It's a reach, I know, but could it possibly have the result of short circuiting this circus and immediately kicking it to federal appeals court?)
If I understand this correctly, this is huge.aggiehawg said:Too little, too late. State cannot pivot and add charges not in the indictment once trial has started and jeopardy has attached. And not even a felony! Oy vey! What a mess!Im Gipper said:
Interesting:During the arguments, the DA's Office signposts that New York Election Law 17-152, which prohibits conspiracies to promote the election of a specific candidate through unlawful means, is the crime that Trump was intending to commit or conceal.
— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) April 23, 2024
Sounds super duper serious!Quote:
17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
We definitely need to lock up the presumptive GOP nominee for President for this terrible act. /s
Piling misdemeanor upon misdemeanor usually does not make a felony case. I see no reason why it would here.
We always assumed that Bragg was relying on some unnamed federal crime to bootstrap his misdemeanor charges against Trump onto in order to make them felonious...thereby providing the justification to extend the statute of limitiations on the allegations.
But now it is revealed that no, it isn't a federal statute that they are relying upon. Rather, it is a New York state election statute. So among the snakes in Pandora's Box now opened:
- they're bootstrapping a misdemeanor onto a misdemeanor in order to claim a felony (as hawg has already noted); BUT, the statute of limitations on BOTH misdemeanors have run.
- instead of arguing federal statute, in which they could claim that they have no control over the prosecution of, they're pointing to a STATE statute, in which they have exclusive control over prosecuting for - but have not charged Trump under this statute.
Merchan is pretty ballsy to tell Trump's attorney that he has little crediblity in his court. Especially when Merchan's credibility as a judge is definitely on trial here as well.
(Random thought: Since it's so obvious that we're making crap up as we go in this prosecution, what's to keep another state's AG, such as Paxton, from filing a federal lawsuit against the State of New York for conspiracy and election interference - ie. interfering in a campaign with national implications, as this trial itself is being increasingly revealed as nothing more than election interference? It's a reach, I know, but could it possibly have the result of short circuiting this circus and immediately kicking it to federal appeals court?)
2:52p, 4/23/24
In reply to Rockdoc
He's like a modern day Robin Hood.Rockdoc said:
This conviction won't make any difference with the voters. They expect it. They also know it won't hold when appealed all the way up.
2:54p, 4/23/24
In reply to jrdaustin
No, Paxton and the state of Texas would have no standing to file suit in federal court nor before the SCOTUS under the precedent set in the election challenge case in late 2020.Quote:
(Random thought: Since it's so obvious that we're making crap up as we go in this prosecution, what's to keep another state's AG, such as Paxton, from filing a federal lawsuit against the State of New York for conspiracy and election interference - ie. interfering in a campaign with national implications, as this trial itself is being increasingly revealed as nothing more than election interference? It's a reach, I know, but could it possibly have the result of short circuiting this circus and immediately kicking it to federal appeals court?)
2:59p, 4/23/24
In reply to aggiehawg
Mind numbing flashbacks.
Oh yeah, the ole you don't have standing before the election bc no damage has been done and you don't have standing after the election either bc it's too late LOLaggiehawg said:No, Paxton and the state of Texas would have no standing to file suit in federal court nor before the SCOTUS under the precedent set in the election challenge case in late 2020.Quote:
(Random thought: Since it's so obvious that we're making crap up as we go in this prosecution, what's to keep another state's AG, such as Paxton, from filing a federal lawsuit against the State of New York for conspiracy and election interference - ie. interfering in a campaign with national implications, as this trial itself is being increasingly revealed as nothing more than election interference? It's a reach, I know, but could it possibly have the result of short circuiting this circus and immediately kicking it to federal appeals court?)
Mind numbing flashbacks.
3:00p, 4/23/24
In reply to aggiehawg
They wouldn't have had standing for that ever.
Nor would they have a cause of action.
Under 2020 precedent?aggiehawg said:No, Paxton and the state of Texas would have no standing to file suit in federal court nor before the SCOTUS under the precedent set in the election challenge case in late 2020.Quote:
(Random thought: Since it's so obvious that we're making crap up as we go in this prosecution, what's to keep another state's AG, such as Paxton, from filing a federal lawsuit against the State of New York for conspiracy and election interference - ie. interfering in a campaign with national implications, as this trial itself is being increasingly revealed as nothing more than election interference? It's a reach, I know, but could it possibly have the result of short circuiting this circus and immediately kicking it to federal appeals court?)
They wouldn't have had standing for that ever.
Nor would they have a cause of action.
3:08p, 4/23/24
In reply to TXAggie2011
They are not final because they are infallible, they are infallible because they are final. But even then they can reverse themselves and do on occasion.
Neither did Roe in Roe v. Wade as she was no longer pregnant when the case was heard. When they want to, SCOTUS can get around those pesky things like actual controversy, ripeness, mootness and standing.Quote:
They wouldn't have had standing for that ever.
They are not final because they are infallible, they are infallible because they are final. But even then they can reverse themselves and do on occasion.
3:09p, 4/23/24
In reply to Opalka
Spoken like a true leftist lib. Yes, there are far more people out there than those like you on the left are willing to admit, who see these entire charade for exactly what it is.Opalka said:Interesting take, but people who support Biden were always going to vote Biden. What you have is folks who USED to support Trump, but don't anymore. If you think this trial is helping Trump, you're delusional. He paid Stormy Daniels, lied about it verbally and in his books. Orchestrated the National Inquirer articles with the help of Pecker and Cohen......and you think all of that is going to draw more support?? WOW.annie88 said:Science Denier said:Gyles Marrett said:Here's why I don't believe that....explain how his support in the polls went up with indictments, yet somehow we are supposed to believe those that increased supporting him for being indicted would then take that support back if convicted of those indictments. Doesn't pass the logic test.Science Denier said:Im Gipper said:Do you have a link to that poll? Very interesting! Most polls I have seen show most think this is a political witch hunt.Quote:
Polls show that if he's convicted many that would vote for him won't. It's a huge issue.
A very quick search shows this one. There are many more
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4441241-trump-poll-convictions-deep-trouble/amp/
Convictions are different than indictments. There are people that that believe in the courts to judge BS indictments that are later overturned and those that lead in convictions.
Doesn't matter to me, but it does to others.
I think if anything it'll make more people vote for Trump, even though they might not have to begin with. The ones that aren't gonna vote for him we're already not going to vote for him.
These trials and especially this one are a new level of bull**** and even some non-people are starting to see that.