Donald Trump seeks to toss New York hush money conviction hours after Supreme Court ruling

[Skylar]

Merchan KNOWS Trump is an innocent man, it was Merchan and Bragg who framed him for these nonexistent felonies, Merchan and Engaron are both going to spend the remainder of their lives at gitmo, they have no intention of adhering to the law, they know they are doomed men!

You imagine. You imagine you speak for Merchan. You imagine Bragg 'framed' Trump. And you imagine the felonies are non-existent.

NY Law 175.10 is quite clear that falsifying business records with the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime....is a felony.

 

[Skylar]

The whole case had no standing and is a sham. Third world shit here, propaganda for the gullible. Trump tore apart the decrepit ring leader last Thursday night. All Democrats are fools

The grand jury, judge, prosecutor, appealant court and federal court who heard Trump's many attempts to dismiss all disagree with you.

As did the jury.

And a state prosecutor trying a man in a state court who committed state crimes in that state has no standing?

I don't think standing means what you think it means.

 

[Skylar]

Months ago, Trump's attorneys said that he, Trump, had immunity.

Merchan, without holding an evidentiary hearing, denied Trump had immunity.

Now, following the SCOTUS ruling on immunity, Trump has a good argument since no State court has any authority (as I said back on April 3) to determine immunity of a Federal official let alone a former President.

Most likely, Merchan will deny, then off to higher courts, maybe even some writs, and this should end up in Federal curt if Trump gets no satisfaction in State court.

​

Hours after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling about presidential immunity, former President Donald Trump on Monday evening sought to throw out his conviction in New York.​

​

Trump's lawyers said the verdict should be tossed because the jury saw evidence during trial that they believe should have been protected by presidential immunity, according to a letter to Judge Juan Merchan, described by sources to ABC News.​

​

The defense sought additional time to make their argument, a move that could delay Trump's sentencing, which is currently scheduled for July 11.​

​

There was no comment from Trump's legal team. The Manhattan district attorney's office declined to comment.​

​

A jury took less than 10 hours to convict Trump of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records about a hush payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels. Trump's then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, wired Daniels $130,000 and Trump reimbursed him in monthly installments disguised as routine legal expenses.​

​

Trump's defense team previously invoked a presidential immunity argument in an unsuccessful effort to limit evidence and attempt to delay the trial.​

​

In March, defense lawyers sought to exclude a government ethics form that disclosed Trump's reimbursement to Cohen as well as a series of tweets from 2018 that prosecutors alleged were part of a "pressure campaign" against Cohen.​

​

"Under these appropriate standards, President Trump's social media posts and public statements-while acting as President and viewed in context-fell within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duty, to which communicating with the public on matters of public concern was central," Trump's lawyers wrote in the March motion that the judge rejected the motion ahead of trial.​

Donald Trump seeks to toss New York hush money conviction hours after Supreme Court ruling

Hours after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling about presidential immunity, former President Donald Trump on Monday evening sought to throw out his conviction in New York.

abc7ny.com

Why would this end up in federal court? What 'official act' did Trump conduct by signing a check for his personal business?

 

[Captain Caveman]

True, it might be a long shot, but I was under the impression the evidence showed he wrote the checks in the oval office, as President....might be wrong...or maybe it only applies to some of the charges...i don't know, but certainly, it would be malpractice if his attorneys didn't raise the argument

The SCOTUS ruled the president has immunity from official acts, is writing a hush money cheque to a porn star classed as an official act? It'll probably stall things slightly, but it's one hell of a long shot.

 

[Skylar]

The SCOTUS ruled the president has immunity from official acts, is writing a hush money cheque to a porn star classed as an official act? It'll probably stall things slightly, but it's one hell of a long shot.

MAGA has a rough time discerning accusations with actual evidence. Or anything they can make up with likely legal outcomes.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

MAGA has a rough time discerning accusations with actual evidence. Or anything they can make up with likely legal outcomes.

BUT, BUT, BUT, BUT THE DIARY AND THE LAPTOP!!! - maga

 

[WEATHER53]

The SCOTUS ruled the president has immunity from official acts, is writing a hush money cheque to a porn star classed as an official act? It'll probably stall things slightly, but it's one hell of a long shot.

Here’s the thing buddy brainless
Writing checks for NDA is ALREADY permitted whether its official or not

 

[Skylar]

Here’s the thing buddy brainless
Writing checks for NDA is ALREADY permitted whether its official or not

Falsifying business records with the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime is most definitely not permitted. As demonstrated by the 34 felony convictions.

Good luck arguing in court that falsifying private business records was an official act as president.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Only MAGA is talking NDA as criminal, not the Dems.

 

[WEATHER53]

Falsifying business records with the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime is most definitely not permitted. As demonstrated by the 34 felony convictions.

Good luck arguing in court that falsifying private business records was an official act as president.

There was no falsification because it’s a permitted act to pay for non disclosure
Since there was no underlying criminal act , the witch hunters concocted it was an impermissible methodology and connected theoretical dots
It’s actually hard to explain what the lib loon contention really is because there really is No Legal violation that occurred. Just the theoretical about what Trump “” to do

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

There was no falsification because it’s a permitted act to pay for non disclosure
Since there was no underlying criminal act , the witch hunters concocted it was an impermissible methodology and connected theoretical dots
It’s actually hard to explain what the lib loon contention really is because there really is No Legal violation that occurred. Just the theoretical about what Trump “” to do

Non disclosure is not the issue, though you don't seem to get that.

 

[Skylar]

There was no falsification because it’s a permitted act to pay for non disclosure

Says you, citing yourself as a legal source. And as the indictment, every failed attempt by Trump's team to have the charges dismissed, the appeals court that rejected his motions to dismiss, the federal court that rejected his motions to dismiss, and the jury verdict convicting Trump of 34 felonies demonstrates elegantly...

...you don't know what the fuck you're talking about

It doesn't matter if paying for a non-disclosure is 'permitted'. It matters if you falsify business documents on that payment.

Which Trump did. And with the intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime.

Since there was no underlying criminal act , the witch hunters concocted it was an impermissible methodology and connected theoretical dots

Ah, but that's not what the jury found, is it? They found that the falsified business records was done with the intent to conceal, aid or commit another crime.

YOU say that there was no underlying criminal act. Citing your feelings.

And your feelings aren't a legal standard.

 

[WEATHER53]

Two loons railing about what his intent was rather than The Fact that paying for non disclosure is permitted and it’s not illegal about his intent of what that would mean for his benefit. NDAs Always benefit that party that does not wish it to be disclosed

 

[Skylar]

Two loons railing about what his intent was rather than The Fact that paying for non disclosure is permitted and it’s not illegal about his intent of what that would mean for his benefit. NDAs Always benefit that party that does not wish it to be disclosed

Paying for NDA's are permitted. Falsifying business records about those payments are not. And falsifying business records with the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime most definitely are not permitted.

Those are felonies.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're making up imaginary 'requirements' that NY 175.10 must meet in order to be applied, that are no part of the actual law.

And your imagination is no more a legal standard than your feelings.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Two loons railing about what his intent was rather than The Fact that paying for non disclosure is permitted and it’s not illegal about his intent of what that would mean for his benefit. NDAs Always benefit that party that does not wish it to be disclosed

You got your butt spanked and all know it.

 

[WEATHER53]

The apple dumplings all in on their feeling of intent
I’ll ask this-I’m in the grocery store and put cupcakes in my pocket.At the register I take them out and pay for it.
Can the store prosecute me based on intent ?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The apple dumplings all in on their feeling of intent
I’ll ask this-I’m in the grocery store and put cupcakes in my pocket.At the register I take them out and pay for it.
Can the store prosecute me based on intent ?

Your illustration is not germane? Can you tell why?

 

[Skylar]

The apple dumplings all in on their feeling of intent
I’ll ask this-I’m in the grocery store and put cupcakes in my pocket.At the register I take them out and pay for it.
Can the store prosecute me based on intent ?

Intent is a legal standard. Its in 175.10's felony enhancement.

"A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

A legal standard that the prosecution met in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records with the intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime.

Remember, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. It tends to hamper your legal arguments.

 

[WEATHER53]

Your illustration is not germane? Can you tell why?

So no answer but rather a feeling that the question is not posed the way you wish

 

[Skylar]

So no answer but rather a feeling that the question is not posed the way you wish

Again, intent is a legal standard. Your opinions and feelings about that legal standard are irrelevant.

And the prosecution proved that Trump intended to commit, aid or conceal another crime with his falsification of business records.

So we've got the actual law on one hand. And your emotions on the other.

The law wins.