Is a Constitutional Crisis looming? (Poll)

[d0gbreath]

The judge did not lt Costello talk. Every word was objected to and sustained.
We disagree on Smith.

MSN

FEC Expert Witness Whose Testimony Merchan Denied Discloses What He Would Have Said in Trump Trial​

I read your link. The Judge said that Smith wouldn't be allowed to answer the question: "Was the money paid to Daniels a campaign contribution?" So, the defense pulled him. I didn't read down to what he says he would've said, because that water is way under the bridge.

 

[Catsnmeters]

^^^^speaking of a parrot

Get back to us when you have an original thought.

The " I know you are but what am I" defense.

Good grief.

 

[Catsnmeters]

“Were” committed.

Exactly.

At least you admit that much.

 

[HeyNorm]

The " I know you are but what am I" defense.

Good grief.

That really wasn’t original. Try again.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Five months before an election, is not the time to be trying a case from 8 years ago.

If it's not past the statute of limitations why not?

We know why it happened just now.

Yeah. Trump is a political candidate. That's what happens.

Do you think Starr would have investigated whitewater if bill wasn't president?

Do you think the Republican house would be investigating Hunter if his dad has retired?

Do you think Republicans would have investigated Benghazi 8 separate times if Hillary wasn't going to run for president?

Trump's a felon. Voters have the right to know.

 

[Catsnmeters]

That really wasn’t original. Try again.

I agree but I had to call you out on it.

 

[kyzr]

I read your link. The Judge said that Smith wouldn't be allowed to answer the question: "Was the money paid to Daniels a campaign contribution?" So, the defense pulled him. I didn't read down to what he says he would've said, because that water is way under the bridge.

...further down...
Smith added, "Bragg's theory hinges on the claim that Trump tried to influence an election through 'unlawful means.' To do that, he'll have to show that Trump violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. But since neither the FEC nor DOJ sued Trump, he's got to show it on his own evidence. "If that's the case, isn't it entirely relevant (not dispositive, but relevant) to the jury's fact-finding on that question that neither DOJ nor FEC chose to prosecute? But Judge Merchan won't allow that in," Smith wrote.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Before I reply to your comments i'll set the stage

Braggs indictment resurrected an expired bookkeeping misdemeanor because it covered up another crime. The other crime can be any of these four. 1. hiding info from voters in the 2016 election, a Federal election crime not charged. 2. Tax crime related to Federal campaign finance laws, not charged. 3. The $130,000 payment to Stormy exceeded the $2,700 limit for Federal elections, not charged.

1. The covered up crimes were ALL Federal

So? The law does not say they can't be.

2. The covered up crimes were all alleged, not convicted in court. Similar to CO saying Trump could not be on the ballot because he took part in an insurrection. That was overturned because Trump was denied due process.

They don't have to be convicted in court.

That is the law.

3. Merchan donates to democrats. That is the definition of conflicted.

35 dollars for which he was already held accountable.

It seems you think that means he can never try a case against republicans again.

That isn't how it works.

4. Manhattan is 90% democrat. Staten Island would have been more fair.

Trump shouldn't have committed his crimes there.

5. The judge denied fact witnesses pertinent to the case.

No he didn't.

6. More...

Bragg and the Jackson Pollock School of Prosecution: Why the Trump Trial Could End With a Hung Jury

Below is my column in the Hill on the approaching closing arguments in the Trump trial. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg appears to be launching his own school of abstract legal work in the …

jonathanturley.org

Turley. Lol.

His opinions are your opinions.

I can find opinions about anything.

How many opinions does it take to overturn a court decision?

 

[task0778]

Hope?

You people trashed Hope waaay back. Remember?

View attachment 956228

You guys were the ones who promised Hope and Change, remember? We didn't get either one.

 

[HeyNorm]

I agree but I had to call you out on it.

On you never having an original thought, like, you know, cults never do.

Ok sparky.

 

[d0gbreath]

...further down...
Smith added, "Bragg's theory hinges on the claim that Trump tried to influence an election through 'unlawful means.' To do that, he'll have to show that Trump violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. But since neither the FEC nor DOJ sued Trump, he's got to show it on his own evidence. "If that's the case, isn't it entirely relevant (not dispositive, but relevant) to the jury's fact-finding on that question that neither DOJ nor FEC chose to prosecute? But Judge Merchan won't allow that in," Smith wrote.

He's trying to say that since the FEC didn't sue trump, trump didn't violate the Federal Election Campaign Act.

It's nonsense and wouldn't have swayed the jury at all. Merchan found it to be irrelevant and inadmissible. That's what judges do.

Sorry Smith.

 

[HeyNorm]

Oh, if we are talking election interference, then the Steele Dossier was a doozy.

The leftist cult kind of just brushed that under the rug.

Curious.

 

[Catsnmeters]

On you never having an original thought, like, you know, cults never do.

Ok sparky.

Ok. I never had an original thought.

You must be tired from reading all 14k of my posts.

Good grief.

 

[HeyNorm]

Ok. I never had an original thought.

You must be tired from reading all 14k of my posts.

Good grief.

It was boring. Like I’d read them all before?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Oh, if we are talking election interference, then the Steele Dossier was a doozy.

The leftist cult kind of just brushed that under the rug.

Curious.

Opposition research is legal.

 

[forkup]

...further down...
Smith added, "Bragg's theory hinges on the claim that Trump tried to influence an election through 'unlawful means.' To do that, he'll have to show that Trump violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. But since neither the FEC nor DOJ sued Trump, he's got to show it on his own evidence. "If that's the case, isn't it entirely relevant (not dispositive, but relevant) to the jury's fact-finding on that question that neither DOJ nor FEC chose to prosecute? But Judge Merchan won't allow that in," Smith wrote.

Merchan also wouldn't allow in the fact that Micheal Cohen admitted to breaking the Election Campaign Act as "relevant" to determine Trump's guilt for the exact same crime, although the underlying crime was based on the same fact set. "Individual one," remember? So why should the prosecution or lack of prosecution of the FEC or DOJ be relevant to Trump, but NOT the actual CONVICTION of Cohen under the same fact-set?

I'll tell you why. Because prosecutorial discretion isn't an actual replacement of double jeopardy, neither is someone else being convicted for the same thing relevant to determine guilt for the person on trial. And you can't apply it retroactively as a get out of jail free card or relevant to determine guilt or innocence.

 

[Catsnmeters]

It was boring. Like I’d read them all before?

Yeah right.

Make excuses for making a ridiculous comment.

 

[kyzr]

So? The law does not say they can't be.

They don't have to be convicted in court. That is the law.

35 dollars for which he was already held accountable. It seems you think that means he can never try a case against republicans again.
That isn't how it works.

Trump shouldn't have committed his crimes there.

No he didn't.

Turley. Lol. His opinions are your opinions. I can find opinions about anything. How many opinions does it take to overturn a court decision?

1. Federal Law says otherwise.

2. The 6th Amendment says otherwise. Similar to CO keeping Trump off the ballot because he was part of an insurrection, overturned due to lack of due process. That is the Constitution.

3. You may be right. Conflicted is debatable.

4. Change of venue is warranted due to political views of a political case of a political candidate.

5. Merchan would not let Smith testify. From post #47
"Smith added, "Bragg's theory hinges on the claim that Trump tried to influence an election through 'unlawful means.' To do that, he'll have to show that Trump violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. But since neither the FEC nor DOJ sued Trump, he's got to show it on his own evidence. "If that's the case, isn't it entirely relevant (not dispositive, but relevant) to the jury's fact-finding on that question that neither DOJ nor FEC chose to prosecute? But Judge Merchan won't allow that in," Smith wrote."

6. Legal expert opinions are usually more correct. We'll see how the appeals play out.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You guys were the ones who promised Hope and Change, remember? We didn't get either one.

Not me, but Obama did bring change and hope? That drew Yuge crowds. You know, the stuff you people think is so great.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1. Federal Law says otherwise.

2. The 6th Amendment says otherwise. Similar to CO keeping Trump off the ballot because he was part of an insurrection, overturned due to lack of due process. That is the Constitution.

3. You may be right. Conflicted is debatable.

4. Change of venue is warranted due to political views of a political case of a political candidate.

5. Merchan would not let Smith testify. From post #47
"Smith added, "Bragg's theory hinges on the claim that Trump tried to influence an election through 'unlawful means.' To do that, he'll have to show that Trump violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. But since neither the FEC nor DOJ sued Trump, he's got to show it on his own evidence. "If that's the case, isn't it entirely relevant (not dispositive, but relevant) to the jury's fact-finding on that question that neither DOJ nor FEC chose to prosecute? But Judge Merchan won't allow that in," Smith wrote."

6. Legal expert opinions are usually more correct. We'll see how the appeals play out.

WrongAgain