Should Trump Trial Go Direct To Supreme Court?

[Couchpotato]

Trump wasn’t charged for the elevating crime.
The DA did know. It’s in the indictment. The judge outlined what they were.

It’s about your inability to understand despite me spoon feeding you.

Again, if that were true there's no need for the jury instruction is there?

The bottom line is this.

This was a purely political prosecution. If Trump weren't running for President, it would not have been brought, like all the other cases currently pending. You're ok with it because of who is being prosecuted in this particular case. Im not because I know that means matter. You may think we are "saving the democracy" by doing this but I know we are killing it. Hopefully the NY appellate courts know this as well and overturns the conviction though I'm not sure that will actually fix what has been broken.

BTW you are a fool

The Trump indictment: What the charges mean and what's next

Donald Trump has achieved many firsts. The first president to be impeached twice. The first president to inspire a riot

www.politifact.com

The indictment and a related "statement of facts" in the case do not name the second crime that turns the misdemeanor records charge into a felony.

 

[Couchpotato]

Whenever you have an extraordinary situation which affects a Presidential election, the precedent is that the SCOTUS takes up the case (Bush v Gore, 2000). This is just as critical.

That's not why SCOTUS heard that case.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yup, the trial was a Democrat Party scam.. everyone knows it and the appeals process in New York is likely corrupted as well. The voters need an honest resolution before the election.

No of course. Trump is a private citizen. He may be a god to you, but he is just a citizen.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You can only hope anyway.

Numbnuts I gave you the judicial history

 

[Delldude]

They only must be unanimous on the 34 counts of falsifying business records. They were. The elevating crime was discussed through the testimony.

Never mentioned in the indictments or formal charges. How was His defense to prepare then?

Let’s not forget that Cohen had already been charged with and pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations with the hush money payments. That plot is obvious at this point.

Has nothing to do with these charges.

If it's so obvious at this point, why wasn't the ex FEC guy allowed to testify or why, during the indictment hearings, Bragg ignored exculpatory evidence from Robert Costello?

They weren’t charges.

Yet the jury found Trump guilty on mickey mouse charges.

Then they have no place in the trial.

 

[BackAgain]

An adult?
It’s reality, dupe. You’re the one struggling.

No. You have no grasp on anything related to reality. Obviously, you simp.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Never mentioned in the indictments or formal charges. How was His defense to prepare then?

By reading the court filing they WERE named in, before the trial.

Duh.

 

[Delldude]

By reading the court filing they WERE named in, before the trial.

That's funny..................both sides of the aisle news media were totally confounded over the lack of mention of these supposed charges. They read the filing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's not why SCOTUS heard that case.

It was because the Florida supreme court fucking around with the election

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's funny..................both sides of the aisle news media were totally confounded over the lack of mention of these supposed charges.

No they aren't. Peddle your lies elsewhere.

The possible secondary crimes were listed in a court filing before the trial.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why would I do that? It was not required to do so.
They were unanimous on the 34 counts charged as they were required to be.

It was, dope.
Read my link above.

Numbnuts stop with contradicting yourself

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The NY case didn't have anything to do with a presidential election. The verdict does tarnish one of the candidates, but that's life.

It has everything to do with the 2024 election
Why did the assistant attorney general start working for Bragg?

 

[BackAgain]

It was specified by statute with examples given for clarity.
Obviously too complex for you to nail down.

False. The statute doesn’t specify any particular “other” crime. No point in your constantly lying about it. The statute speaks for itself.

And the law (as interpreted by the courts in NY) doesn’t demand that the state specify the “other” crime.

Reality and honesty are far beyond your reach.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It has everything to do with the 2024 election
Why did the assistant attorney general start working for Bragg?

Tough shit. Trump.should have thought of that before going on crime sprees.

 

[Skylar]

Again, if that were true there's no need for the jury instruction is there?

The bottom line is this.

This was a purely political prosecution. If Trump weren't running for President, it would not have been brought, like all the other cases currently pending. You're ok with it because of who is being prosecuted in this particular case. Im not because I know that means matter. You may think we are "saving the democracy" by doing this but I know we are killing it. Hopefully the NY appellate courts know this as well and overturns the conviction though I'm not sure that will actually fix what has been broken.

BTW you are a fool

The Trump indictment: What the charges mean and what's next

Donald Trump has achieved many firsts. The first president to be impeached twice. The first president to inspire a riot

www.politifact.com

The indictment and a related "statement of facts" in the case do not name the second crime that turns the misdemeanor records charge into a felony.

Says you, citing yourself. You're offering us your imagination about a narrartive you're inventing for other people as a legal argument.

And jury instructions are ALWAYS required, if for nothing else than the concept of reasonable doubt and the standards to meet each applicable law.

You'll find that most Magite outrage about the law and legal proceedings is just them not understanding how any of it actually works. Like Trump, when he insisted that his gag order prevented him from testifying.

Smiling.....no it didn't.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The SCOTUS will not hear it.

When they turn down the idiocy of Immunity, you will know it is over for Trump.

Should Trump Trial Go Direct Supreme Court?

 

[Couchpotato]

Says you, citing yourself. You're offering us your imagination about a narrartive you're inventing for other people as a legal argument.

Do you honestly believe these charges are brought if Trump isn’t running to get elected President?

And jury instructions are ALWAYS required, if for nothing else than the concept of reasonable doubt and the standards to meet each applicable law.

No one said jury instructions don’t happen. It’s what they entail that’s important

You'll find that most Magite outrage about the law and legal proceedings is just them not understanding how any of it actually works. Like Trump, when he insisted that his gag order prevented him from testifying.

Smiling.....no it didn't.

That you don’t see that you’re as bad tells me all I need to know.

 

[Skylar]

Do you honestly believe these charges are brought if Trump isn’t running to get elected President?

Yup. With Michael Cohen's testimony, I do. They didn't know the full extent of the crimes nor would they have been able to easily prove it without his testimony. With Pecker backing Cohen, and Trump's own admission....it was a slam dunk.

No one said jury instructions don’t happen. It’s what they entail that’s important

Have you read them? Would you like to? I have them right here.

That you don’t see that you’re as bad tells me all I need to know.

What about the jury instructions was 'bad'? Specifically. If you're offering your judgment on jury instructions you've never read.....well that tells me all I need to know about you.

 

[Couchpotato]

Yup. With Michael Cohen's testimony, I do. They didn't know the full extent of the crimes nor would they have been able to easily prove it without his testimony. With Pecker backing Cohen, and Trump's own admission....it was a slam dunk.

Then you are even dumber than I first thought, which is pretty fucking dumb.

Have you read them? Would you like to? I have them right here.

Yes I have. Have you read this thread?

What about the jury instructions was 'bad'? Specifically. If you're offering your judgment on jury instructions you've never read.....well that tells me all I need to know about you.

The instruction to the jury that they didnt have to agree on the predicate crime in order to find Trump guilty of the FRB charge. The entire trial hinged on that crime as it made the misdemeanor FRB a felony. If the DA can articulate and prove that crime they have no business bringing this case. Bragg didn't/couldn't which is why the judge gave those instructions. They convicted him (Trump) basically on "we aren't sure exactly what he did, but he definitely did it and it was bad."

 

[Skylar]

Then you are even dumber than I first thought, which is pretty fucking dumb.

The grand jury, judge, prosecution, NY appeals court, federal court and jury disagree.

They either allowed the case to move forward,found the charges justified by the evidence, or found Trump guilty of charges.

The jury barely needed a day to deliberate. Trump refused to testify in his own defense. It was a slam dunk.

Yes I have. Have you read this thread?

Then where, pray tell, are the errors in the jury instructions?

The instruction to the jury that they didnt have to agree on the predicate crime in order to find Trump guilty of the FRB charge.

And they don't. The requirement of the felony enhancement for 175.10 was that the falsification of business records as done with the intent to commit, aid or hide another crime.

It didn't specific which crime. Only that the intent was to commit another crime. Which the jury unanimously agreed Trump did.

Where is the error, exactly? Quote the law demonstrating the error.

The entire trial hinged on that crime as it made the misdemeanor FRB a felony. If the DA can articulate and prove that crime they have no business bringing this case.

Nope. That's meaningless nonsense. There's zero requirement in the 175.10 felony enhancement that requires that the DA has to prove ANY other crime was commited.

The standard of the law was the INTENT to commit, aid or conceal another crime. With Merchan going into elaborate detail about intent in the jury instructions.

Your imaginary requirement that the DA had to prove another crime had been committed is meaningless, pseudo-legal gibberish. Its simply not a requirement for the felony enhancement of 175.10.

You made it up. And your imagination isn't a legal standard. Let alone establishes a legal error by the judge.