Poll: Which court will overturn Trump's conviction for his NDA?

[Dragonlady]

Gonna be fun watching your head explode too when this farce is bitchslapped in a real court.

Any day now. When was the last time Trump actually WON any of the cases he's filed against ANYONE?

 

[Nostra]

Any day now. When was the last time Trump actually WON any of the cases he's filed against ANYONE?

Um, his unanimous victory in the SC against Colorado and several other states trying to illegally keep him off the ballot, Dumbass.

Grow a brain.

 

[Crepitus]

Are you really that clueless? No need for us to go any further until you get educated on the topic.

So you don't know either?

Why am I not surprised.

I'mma go back to not responding to your posts again. It's just a waste of time.

 

[Nostra]

So you don't know either?

Why am I not surprised.

I'mma go back to not responding to your posts again. It's just a waste of time.

Cool. See ya, Dumbass.

 

[DBA]

On what grounds would the Supreme Court overturn the ruling? Its a State case.

The SC’s appellate jurisdiction gives them quite a bit of leeway in determining which cases they wish to take. A very simple argument that Trump‘s 6th Amendment right to a fair trial was violated in this case. This case was extroidnary in that this was a past President and current candidate being judged by a politically partisan court a few months before an election. There is ample justification for the SC to take up this case if needed.

None of this matters. The Democrats only care about winning he election. If they win, this will all fall by the way side. If Trump wins, they likely already have many more trumped up cases that partisan AGs and DAs are willing to take on.

 

[Lisa558]

On what grounds would the Supreme Court overturn the ruling? Its a State case.

State cases are appealed to the SCOTUS all the time when a state violates a citizen’s Constitutional rights.

 

[Nostra]

State cases are appealed to the SCOTUS all the time when a state violates a citizen’s Constitutional rights.

That post was hilarious. He has no clue the SC takes cases decided in state courts.

 

[DBA]

Trump is guilty. We don't have to explain it to idiots like you. Follow the trial.

I do agree that he had her sign an NDA. Where is the proof that he did so for his campaign vs for personal reasons? NDA’s are issued on a daily basis by wealthy, well-known people and by corporations. Trump has issued several himself in the past prior to being in politics. Is he guilty just because he happened to be running for President at the time? Nefarious at best.

 

[Lisa558]

The SC’s appellate jurisdiction gives them quite a bit of leeway in determining which cases they wish to take. A very simple argument that Trump‘s 6th Amendment right to a fair was violated in this case. This case was extroidnary in that this was a past President and current candidate being judged by a politically partisan court a few months before an election. There is ample justification for the SC to take up this case if needed.

None of this matters. The Democrats only care about winning he election. If they win, this will all fall by the way side. If Trump wins, they likely already have many more trumped up cases that partisan AGs and DAs are willing to take on.

There is no question that this sham prosecution and bogus trial will be overturned, by the SCOTUS if required. The real question is whether the state appeals court will drag this out in order to give the Dems more time to use the “convicted felon” label as their campaign strategy against Trump.

If DOES seem that if a matter is time-sensitive and of extreme impact to the future of the country that the SCOTUS could step in as an emergency measure.

 

[Lisa558]

That post was hilarious. He has no clue the SC takes cases decided in state courts.

It just shows how ignorant these libtards are. ALL cases go to the SCOTUS after bad appeal decisions by the state.

 

[Lisa558]

I do agree that he had her sign an NDA. Where is the proof that he did so for his campaign vs for personal reasons? NDA’s are issued on a daily basis by wealthy, well-known people and by corporations. Trump has issued several himself in the past prior to being in politics. Is he guilty just because he happened to be running for President at the time? Nefarious at best.

The benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the defendant.

 

[DBA]

There is no question that this sham prosecution and bogus trial will be overturned, by the SCOTUS if required. The real question is whether the state appeals court will drag this out in order to give the Dems more time to use the “convicted felon” label as their campaign strategy against Trump.

If DOES seem that if a matter is time-sensitive and of extreme impact to the future of the country that the SCOTUS could step in as an emergency measure.

I am sure it will be drug out as long as possible. It is all about the election.

 

[Lisa558]

I am sure it will be drug out as long as possible. It is all about the election.

Sad but true.

 

[OldFlame]

~~~~~~
The primary appeal for reversal has to go to the NY State Appellate Court.
With the blatant Constitutional violations and violations by Judge Merchan this would be a no brainer to reverse.
We have to wait until Judge Merchan decides the punishment. However, immediately after that appeals will be filed. Trump will not serve time, nor see the inside of jail unless Merchan demands it forthwith
Meanwhile, Breaking news is:

BREAKING: Georgia Court of Appeals Halts All Proceedings in Trump RICO Case​

BREAKING: Georgia Court of Appeals Halts All Proceedings in Trump RICO Case | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Fani Willis’ trial against Trump is most certainly not happening before the 2024 election!

www.thegatewaypundit.com

This means there is o way the Georgia "Trump Trial" can go forward. Fani Willis may lose her license to practice law.

Additionally:

MSN

Judge Aileen Cannon has agreed to Donald Trump's request for a hearing on whether Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel in his classified documents case is legal, and she's allowing parties not involved in the case to take part...

It would interesting, and revealing, I'm sure, to be able to see who all is meeting/conversing during this time between the trial and the sentencing. I hope someone uses FOIA to get that information.

 

[Faun]

Constitutionally every charge has to be specified, that would include the felony enhancement. You can't have a Chinese menu.

It was. He was charged with violating § 175.10 with the underlying crime being § 17-152.

Just because you're ignorant of that doesn't mean the appellate courts will be.

 

[Faun]

Once again, everything has to be specified and agreed to by the jury..

Now I'm going to bed.

Numbnuts, from where do you get your news?? All 12 jurors unanimously agreed Trump violated § 175.10.

 

[Captain Caveman]

On what grounds would the Supreme Court overturn the ruling? Its a State case.

They will follow the law based on law as opposed to agenda.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah, that article never once mentions the Supreme Court.

You really put this little thought into your own argument before starting an entire thread about this?

What basis would the SCOTUS itself use for overturning the NY State case? They generally don't step in on State cases without some greater constitutional issue that needs to be defined at stake.

You've cited none.

@nostrils is getting his ass kicked.

 

[Faun]

Well, one could be that Bragg is guilty of abusing his office by vowing to “get trump” during his campaign.

Another could be from the result into the investigation into how the Biden administrstion may have played a role in this, through the odd act of colangelo leaving the Biden doj to help bragg

One might be that Bragg broke the rules of issuing an indictment by not including all relevant information in the indictment, such as the underlying crimes used to bring this case forward

One could be that this legal theory that was untested, was used to revive a case 5 years past its statute of limitation.

One might be that, they convicted him based on a law where the letter of the law was not met (no intent to defraud)

One might be that there was actually no falsification of business records, marking a payment to your attorney for implementing an NDA IS ACTUALLY a legal expense. Even if the reason for that payment WAS to conceal the payment to cohen, it technically was not a false business record. What they should have done is charge him with campaign finance violation, or attempt to conceal a campaign finance violation, but that would have been a federal charge and out of braggs jurisdiction, thus the law he chose.

Those are just some things I could think of that might possibly be a reason..

You're deranged.

Colangelo left the Department of Justice in April, 2021. He went to work with Bragg more than a year and a half later in December, 2022.

How in your defective brain is that Colangelo leaving Biden to go work for Bragg?

 

[candycorn]

Still no crime, Simp.

You lose again.