Democrats destroyed the credibility of the American legal system to support their own hallucinations of Trump becoming a dictator.

[SeaMajor7]

Ok. Explain that please.

Explanation: Soviet LAWFARE has no place in this Constitutional Republic.

 

[SavannahMann]

Explanation: Soviet LAWFARE has no place in this Constitutional Republic.

Ok. What parts of the constitution were violated and how?

There are Supreme Court decisions on nearly everything. Especially criminal cases. So if there was a violation of precedent I am very interested. If there was a violation of the principle I am still interested. But so far, I haven’t seen it.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Ok. What parts of the constitution were violated and how?

There are Supreme Court decisions on nearly everything. Especially criminal cases. So if there was a violation of precedent I am very interested. If there was a violation of the principle I am still interested. But so far, I haven’t seen it.

Due process, for starters.
Your feigned ignorance isn't helping you.

 

[forkup]

Due process, for starters.
Your feigned ignorance isn't helping you.

This is like saying, "because I said so", when asked to explain something.

How do you suppose Trump's right to "due process" was violated? He was indicted by a Grand Jury. He could file pretrial motions. He had his day in court. He can avail himself to the appeals process.

What other process is he entitled to?

 

[SavannahMann]

Due process, for starters.
Your feigned ignorance isn't helping you.

Well people keep throwing them out and they don’t apply. The First Amendment. Gag orders to preserve the rights of the accused are common. It is also necessary to keep from confusing or intimidating the jury. Fair trials demand it in some circumstances.

Earlier another poster claimed the Fourth Amendment. I’m still not sure what that was to do with this case. I am assuming they seized business records and phone records. Not unusual in a criminal case. I’d be surprised if they didn’t. Was there a problem with the Subpoenas or Warrants?

Sixth Amendment. One earlier claim was that the prosecution didn’t tell the Trump Defense Team who the witness was until the day before. That’s discovery. And I would be very surprised if that was violated. And I’d agree it was a problem. But I’ll need more information on that claim. Since the press was talking about the witnesses for months, I find it hard to believe it was a surprise for Team Trump.

Another poster claimed Eighth Amendment. Ok. So far as I know Trump was released on his own recognizance. New York has cashless bail and no fines have been assessed except a couple thousand for contempt of court for violating the Gag Order. So I don’t see how that applies to this case.

Another claim was Fourteenth Amendment. Really? Equal protection? If it was me on trial as a citizen and I ran my mouth half as much as Trump did in violation of the Gag order I’d have ended up spending the night in jail.

So give me specifics. I’m willing to consider it. But it takes more than “you just know”.

 

[SeaMajor7]

This is like saying, "because I said so", when asked to explain something.

How do you suppose Trump's right to "due process" was violated? He was indicted by a Grand Jury. He could file pretrial motions. He had his day in court. He can avail himself to the appeals process.

What other process is he entitled to?

Denied witnesses, denied WHAT CRIME HE'S BEEN ACCUSED OF, a state prosecutor pursuing federal charges.
Why are you demented avenger subverted demoralized Stalinist Marxist Leninist zombie ASSHOLES pretending that Trump doesn't have Constitutional rights?

 

[SeaMajor7]

Well people keep throwing them out and they don’t apply. The First Amendment. Gag orders to preserve the rights of the accused are common. It is also necessary to keep from confusing or intimidating the jury. Fair trials demand it in some circumstances.

Earlier another poster claimed the Fourth Amendment. I’m still not sure what that was to do with this case. I am assuming they seized business records and phone records. Not unusual in a criminal case. I’d be surprised if they didn’t. Was there a problem with the Subpoenas or Warrants?

Sixth Amendment. One earlier claim was that the prosecution didn’t tell the Trump Defense Team who the witness was until the day before. That’s discovery. And I would be very surprised if that was violated. And I’d agree it was a problem. But I’ll need more information on that claim. Since the press was talking about the witnesses for months, I find it hard to believe it was a surprise for Team Trump.

Another poster claimed Eighth Amendment. Ok. So far as I know Trump was released on his own recognizance. New York has cashless bail and no fines have been assessed except a couple thousand for contempt of court for violating the Gag Order. So I don’t see how that applies to this case.

Another claim was Fourteenth Amendment. Really? Equal protection? If it was me on trial as a citizen and I ran my mouth half as much as Trump did in violation of the Gag order I’d have ended up spending the night in jail.

So give me specifics. I’m willing to consider it. But it takes more than “you just know”.

 

[SavannahMann]

Denied witnesses, denied WHAT CRIME HE'S BEEN ACCUSED OF, a state prosecutor pursuing federal charges.
Why are you demented avenger subverted demoralized Stalinist Marxist Leninist zombie ASSHOLES pretending that Trump doesn't have Constitutional rights?

Trump absolutely has Constitutional Rights. But not rights that nobody else has.

The Witnesses.

I believe you are talking about the Defense Witness who was an expert on election law. A man who was to testify about his opinions concerning the specifics of the case.

That has never been how a trial works. We have seen experts in fields offer testimony about specific facts or conclusions in the case. But the law and how it is applied is up to the court. Not the witnesses. The Judge explains the law to the Jury, in consultation with the attorneys for both sides. I’ve never heard of a witness in a trial there to explain the law before. Have you?

Those legal questions are usually decided before the trial in hearings before the Judge. Both sides bring precedents to back up their arguments.

I’m on record as absolutely supporting the decision to drop the charges against the Bundy’s when it was shown the Federal Agents lied. Look it up. I’ve called them asshats. But it was absolutely the right thing to do.

I swore an oath to defend the Constitution and the Civil Rights contained within. I’m a member of the NRA and the ACLU for that reason. I believe all rights should be protected.

Until Trump’s legal troubles I was often called a cop hating asshole for my positions. If you can show any misconduct or abuses I’ll consider them. But just because I said so doesn’t cut it.

Conservatives are Traditionalists. In the courts Tradition is called Precedent. Show me the precedent and I’ll agree with you. Show me the facts. But just screaming that you know is Twitter level childishness.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Trump absolutely has Constitutional Rights. But not rights that nobody else has.

The Witnesses.

I believe you are talking about the Defense Witness who was an expert on election law. A man who was to testify about his opinions concerning the specifics of the case.

That has never been how a trial works. We have seen experts in fields offer testimony about specific facts or conclusions in the case. But the law and how it is applied is up to the court. Not the witnesses. The Judge explains the law to the Jury, in consultation with the attorneys for both sides. I’ve never heard of a witness in a trial there to explain the law before. Have you?

Those legal questions are usually decided before the trial in hearings before the Judge. Both sides bring precedents to back up their arguments.

I’m on record as absolutely supporting the decision to drop the charges against the Bundy’s when it was shown the Federal Agents lied. Look it up. I’ve called them asshats. But it was absolutely the right thing to do.

I swore an oath to defend the Constitution and the Civil Rights contained within. I’m a member of the NRA and the ACLU for that reason. I believe all rights should be protected.

Until Trump’s legal troubles I was often called a cop hating asshole for my positions. If you can show any misconduct or abuses I’ll consider them. But just because I said so doesn’t cut it.

Conservatives are Traditionalists. In the courts Tradition is called Precedent. Show me the precedent and I’ll agree with you. Show me the facts. But just screaming that you know is Twitter level childishness.

You can continue to twist into a pretzel to excuse this NINE YEAR Soviet LAWFARE and obfuscation, you are still WRONG, and the SCOTUS absolutely HAS to put an END to this travesty.
The precedent being sought would be a DEATH KNELL TO THE COUNTRY!!!!

 

[forkup]

Denied witnesses, denied WHAT CRIME HE'S BEEN ACCUSED OF, a state prosecutor pursuing federal charges.
Why are you demented avenger subverted demoralized Stalinist Marxist Leninist zombie ASSHOLES pretending that Trump doesn't have Constitutional rights?

Oh lord, literally NOTHING of what you just mentioned is actually true. The indictment had his charges listed. District Attorney Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Indictment of Former President Donald J. Trump

He was not denied any witnesses. What was denied was the scope to what could be testified to. A witness IS NOT simply allowed to say whatever he likes. Neither is a lawyer allowed to simply ask any question. ANYONE who's ever seen so much as an Ally McBeal episode should know that. A lawyer can only ask relevant questions for instance. A witness can only give relevant answers. That's just as much "due process" as the right to an attorney.

Bragg DIDN'T pursue federal charges. He pursued the charges of felonious falsification of business records under NY law. You are confusing the fact that in order to make it a felony other crimes, one of which would be a federal crime has to be determined to have been committed. Guess what, a jury is perfectly qualified to determine that if the evidence supports it.

IF Bragg would have tried to pursue Federal Election law charges he wouldn't have gotten past pretrial motions because of standing, but since he didn't there's no problem. Trump WAS NOT charged with them.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Oh lord, literally NOTHING of what you just mentioned is actually true. The indictment had his charges listed. District Attorney Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Indictment of Former President Donald J. Trump

He was not denied any witnesses. What was denied was the scope to what could be testified to. A witness IS NOT simply allowed to say whatever he likes. Neither is a lawyer allowed to simply ask any question. ANYONE who's ever seen so much as an Ally McBeal episode should know that. A lawyer can only ask relevant questions for instance. A witness can only give relevant answers. That's just as much "due process" as the right to an attorney.

Bragg DIDN'T pursue federal charges. He pursued the charges of felonious falsification of business records under NY law. You are confusing the fact that in order to make it a felony other crimes, one of which would be a federal crime has to be determined to have been committed. Guess what, a jury is perfectly qualified to determine that if the evidence supports it.

IF Bragg would have tried to pursue Federal Election law charges he wouldn't have gotten past pretrial motions because of standing, but since he didn't there's no problem. Trump WAS NOT charged with them.

He WAS denied witness, and was denied clarification of what EXACTLY he was being charged for until the defense RESTED.
This SOVIET LAWFARE BULLSHIT HAS NO PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[westwall]

Well people keep throwing them out and they don’t apply. The First Amendment. Gag orders to preserve the rights of the accused are common. It is also necessary to keep from confusing or intimidating the jury. Fair trials demand it in some circumstances.

Earlier another poster claimed the Fourth Amendment. I’m still not sure what that was to do with this case. I am assuming they seized business records and phone records. Not unusual in a criminal case. I’d be surprised if they didn’t. Was there a problem with the Subpoenas or Warrants?

Sixth Amendment. One earlier claim was that the prosecution didn’t tell the Trump Defense Team who the witness was until the day before. That’s discovery. And I would be very surprised if that was violated. And I’d agree it was a problem. But I’ll need more information on that claim. Since the press was talking about the witnesses for months, I find it hard to believe it was a surprise for Team Trump.

Another poster claimed Eighth Amendment. Ok. So far as I know Trump was released on his own recognizance. New York has cashless bail and no fines have been assessed except a couple thousand for contempt of court for violating the Gag Order. So I don’t see how that applies to this case.

Another claim was Fourteenth Amendment. Really? Equal protection? If it was me on trial as a citizen and I ran my mouth half as much as Trump did in violation of the Gag order I’d have ended up spending the night in jail.

So give me specifics. I’m willing to consider it. But it takes more than “you just know”.

Trump is the only defendant in the history if this country to be hit with a gag order, so try again.

 

[SavannahMann]

You can continue to twist into a pretzel to excuse this NINE YEAR Soviet LAWFARE and obfuscation, you are still WRONG, and the SCOTUS absolutely HAS to put an END to this travesty.
The precedent being sought would be a DEATH KNELL TO THE COUNTRY!!!!

Nixon needed a Pardon to avoid criminal prosecution when he left office. Clinton needed the plea bargain. So the idea that a former President could face criminal charges is nothing new.

The only thing new is that for the first time someone was dumb enough to allow it to go to a trial, and extra dumb by not listening to the lawyers.

 

[SavannahMann]

Trump is the only defendant in the history if this country to be hit with a gag order, so try again.

That is ridiculous. If he was then the phrase Gag Order would have to be explained.

 

[westwall]

Nixon needed a Pardon to avoid criminal prosecution when he left office. Clinton needed the plea bargain. So the idea that a former President could face criminal charges is nothing new.

The only thing new is that for the first time someone was dumb enough to allow it to go to a trial, and extra dumb by not listening to the lawyers.

That's because Nixon committed actual crimes.

Trump didn't.

 

[SweetSue92]

Ok. What parts of the constitution were violated and how?

There are Supreme Court decisions on nearly everything. Especially criminal cases. So if there was a violation of precedent I am very interested. If there was a violation of the principle I am still interested. But so far, I haven’t seen it.

Just for starters, due process. The 5th amendment.

 

[SavannahMann]

That's because Nixon committed actual crimes.

Trump didn't.

The Jury said he did.

He is facing charges from his own actions. Not some witch-hunt.

 

[westwall]

That is ridiculous. If he was then the phrase Gag Order would have to be explained.

Find another defendant who has ever been hit with a gag order.

You won't.

Gag orders are for the DEFENSE! They exist to protect the Rights of the ACCUSED!

Not the prosecution!

Never, in the history of this country has the accused been hit with a gag order.

Ever!

 

[SeaMajor7]

Nixon needed a Pardon to avoid criminal prosecution when he left office. Clinton needed the plea bargain. So the idea that a former President could face criminal charges is nothing new.

The only thing new is that for the first time someone was dumb enough to allow it to go to a trial, and extra dumb by not listening to the lawyers.

You're citing lawfare to excuse THIS lawfare?
GTFOH!!!!!

 

[SavannahMann]

Just for starters, due process. The 5th amendment.

The Fifth Amendment is right against self incrimination.

Trump had a Grand Jury. He had the right against self incrimination.

As for due process. That’s been covered. I need specifics. Not just vague claims made in a shout.