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

[Nostra]

Workers Comp?

Poor clueless troll.

 

[Rogue AI]

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

6th Amendment. No due process for an uncharged unspecified crime. The state simply declared guilt without providing any evidence of such or even providing evidence the charges at hand even related to an uncharged and unspecified crime.

Not to mention the choose your own adventure jury instructions.

 

[Nostra]

Wait....you still have no rational basis for the SCOTUS intervening in Trump's NY State case?

After you started an entire thread about this?

You really are quite easy to run off your own claims.

See post 20, you raving moron.

My foot is getting sore from kicking your ass all day.

 

[Nostra]

6th Amendment. No due process for an uncharged unspecified crime. The state simply declared guilt without providing any evidence of such or even providing evidence the charges at hand even related to an uncharged and unspecified crime.

Not to mention the choose your own adventure jury instructions.

That idiot doesn't think the SC gets involved in state cases.

 

[Skylar]

FECA.

Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) | Definition, Amendments, & Facts

Federal Election Campaign Act, legislation adopted in 1971 to regulate the raising and spending of money in U.S. federal elections.

www.britannica.com

And what violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act would the NY case violate?

Remember, Trump screams 'election interference' if you so much as criticize him. No court has ever taken it seriously.

Let alone the Supreme Court.

 

[Nostra]

And what violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act would the NY case violate?

Remember, Trump screams 'election interference' if you so much as criticize him. No court has ever taken it seriously.

Let alone the Supreme Court.

Hey stupid, state courts have no jurisdiction over federal election laws. You are one clueless simp.

 

[Skylar]

Buzz Kill: The Trump Conviction Presents a Target-Rich Environment for Appeal

Below is my column in the Hill on the most compelling grounds for an appeal in the Trump case after his conviction on 34 counts in Manhattan. There has been considerable criticism of the defense te…

jonathanturley.org

Turley's only mention of the Supreme Court is this:

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the requirement of unanimity in criminal convictions is sacrosanct in our system."

And the jurors voted unanimously, both the primary charge of 175.10 and on its felony enhancement that the falsifying of business records was intended to commit, aid or conceal another crime.

So what would the Constitutional issue so dire, that the Supreme Court would overrule a State Case on its own laws? Unanimity was reached by the jury.

Twice.

You'll need to cut and paste another link to another article you've never read, Nostra. The last two haven't made the slightest sense.

 

[Skylar]

Hey stupid, state courts have no jurisdiction over federal election laws. You are one clueless simp.

Strawman. The NY case doesn't claim have such jurisdiction nor was Trump tried for the violation of any federal law in the NY case.

So......what's the constitutional issue so dire that the Supreme Court would overturn a NY court on NY criminal law?

Please be specific. Or at the very least, ape someone who has the understanding of the issue that you clearly do not.

 

[Nostra]

Turley's only mention of the Supreme Court is this:

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the requirement of unanimity in criminal convictions is sacrosanct in our system."

And the jurors voted unanimously, both the primary charge of 175.10 and on its felony enhancement that the falsifying of business records was intended to commit, aid or conceal another crime.

So what would the Constitutional issue so dire, that the Supreme Court would overrule a State Case on its own laws? Unanimity was reached by the jury.

Twice.

You'll need to cut and paste another link to another article you've never read, Nostra. The last two haven't made the slightest sense.

You are a lying sack of shit troll.

Turley from my link:

While it may be tough going initially in the New York court system for the former president, this case could well end up in the federal system and the United States Supreme Court.

 

[BackAgain]

And what violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act would the NY case violate?

Try to follow along. The State suggested that maybe possibly Trump had “intended” to violate FECA by filing a “falsified” business record.

It’s not that NY violated the law. Their claim was that maybe Trump has intended to. But the thing is, NY has no jurisdiction to prosecute a federal “other” crime.

Remember, Trump screams 'election interference' if you so much as criticize him. No court has ever taken it seriously.

No. He protests election interference when it is being done to him.

His complaint is serious. And legitimate.

Let alone the Supreme Court.

You don’t get to speak for the SCOTUS.

And your belief doesn’t control anything.

 

[Nostra]

Strawman. The NY case doesn't claim have such jurisdiction nor was Trump tried for the violation of any federal law in the NY case.

So......what's the constitutional issue so dire that the Supreme Court would overturn a NY court on NY criminal law?

Please be specific. Or at the very least, ape someone who has the understanding of the issue that you clearly do not.

Fed election violations was one of the many choices the hack Merchan gave the jury in his verbal instructions since the prosecution never specified the underlying crime they used to resurrect dead misdemeanors, moron.

You obviously have no clue what happened in this case. Not surprising since you think the SC doesn't take up state cases.

 

[otto105]

So let me get this staight.........it's your position the SC has never ruled on a court decision in a state case?

He asked you on what grounds would the activist sc use to intervene.

 

[Nostra]

He asked you on what grounds would the activist sc use to intervene.

And I have provided several legal expert's opinions, moron.

Try to keep up.

 

[otto105]

And I have provided several legal expert's opinions, moron.

Try to keep up.

Who Alan Dershowitz? The sellout

Some hack on Fox?

 

[Nostra]

Who Alan Dershowitz? The sellout

Some hack on Fox?

Read the thread and get up to speed. Try not to always expose your ignorance so fast.

 

[Skylar]

You are a lying sack of shit troll.

Turley from my link:

While it may be tough going initially in the New York court system for the former president, this case could well end up in the federal system and the United States Supreme Court.

And when he cites the Supreme Court, the ONE and ONLY issue he raises....is this:

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the requirement of unanimity in criminal convictions is sacrosanct in our system."

And the jurors voted unanimously, both the primary charge of 175.10 and on its felony enhancement that the falsifying of business records was intended to commit, aid or conceal another crime.

So what would the Constitutional issue so dire, that the Supreme Court would overrule a State Case on its own laws? Unanimity was reached by the jury.

Twice.

You're not very good at this, Nostra.

 

[skye]

I voted the US Supreme Court let's hope!

 

[otto105]

Read the thread and get up to speed. Try not to always expose your ignorance so fast.

I don’t find the presented opinions to be worth shit.

So, again, what is the federal issue the activist court is looking for?

 

[Skylar]

And I have provided several legal expert's opinions, moron.

Try to keep up.

One doesn't mention the Supreme Court at all. And the other raises a moot point, as the jury was unanimous in BOTH its conviction for 175.10 AND the felony enhancement.

Making any concerns on how 'sacrosanct' the Supreme Court holds unanimous decisions by juries to be gloriously irrelevant. Let alone so important that the Supreme Court overturns a jury verdict on NY Laws.

You're spamming links to articles you've never read and arguments you don't understand.

 

[Skylar]

I don’t find the presented opinions to be worth shit.

So, again, what is the federal issue the activist court is looking for?

You're asking the wrong fella if you're directing that question at Nostra. He's a regurgitator. He'll spam links to articles he's never so much as looked at....as he genuinely won't do the research necessary to have an informed opinion on any of this.

There's no federal issue regarding a NY criminal trial for falsifying business records.