The vast majority of the USA does not use NY laws at all on what Trump was charged with

[SavannahMann]

Would you say this trial was just? I get the impression you do. But based on our discussion of the actual law of NY, it is tied to election laws. We have not posted the election laws. We posted the business records law.
I studied law in college. So for me law is more easily handled. A lot of papers say show me the candidate and I will find you a crime. Biden will have his day in court. This case opened the dam.

I think the case was a stretch. I think it was legal, if weak. I think the prosecutor would have jumped at a plea bargain had it been offered.

I haven’t studied law. I have read a lot and I listen to pundits from many sources. I don’t just read one and done. I read the experts like Turley, and am struck by the observation that he never explains why he believes something. Most can. They can point to a case, or a decision, which supports their view, if only tangentially.

I watch lawyers on YouTube and the net. There are a couple favorites I could link to.

It was, as far as I know, a fair trial. The problem with the defense is they did not offer a narrative. No, that isn’t the real problem. The real problem is that Trump didn’t have a fixer worth a damn.

Other politicians do crooked things. But they hire experts to manage it. They let the fixer get control of a PAC and let the PAC do things like the hush money stuff.

Trump likes to manage things himself. And that is mistake number 1 when looking at bending or breaking laws. FDR supposedly said that if you are going to commit a crime, first hire a smart lawyer. This was when he hired Bill Donovan to run what later became the OSS. Donovan was a good lawyer and knew when to keep FDR out of the loop for plausible deniability.

I said that Trump never learned what it was to be President. He didn’t. He never got the idea behind plausible deniability.

Let’s take another Republican. Reagan and the Iran Contra scandal. The subordinates testified that Reagan had no knowledge. Nobody could find any evidence that was untrue. Reagan was insulated. A move of an experienced politician.

The same is true of Nixon. If he had called the AG when he learned about the Plumbers and Watergate, he would never had to resign. Instead he decided to take charge and manage the coverup. That was a fatal mistake.

Nobody claimed or could testify that Nixon ordered the break in. But we had a ton of proof he ordered the coverup.

Clinton was in trouble when he tried to manage it. If he had told one person the truth and let them handle it then there never would have been an impeachment hearing. But he tried to do it himself. He ended up plea bargaining just before leaving office.

You get a fixer, and after that no updates, no progress reports. Nothing. That is how you protect the politician. Any bets on if Biden has such protections? A man with a lifetime of experience in the game?

 

[Robert W]

I think the case was a stretch. I think it was legal, if weak. I think the prosecutor would have jumped at a plea bargain had it been offered.

I haven’t studied law. I have read a lot and I listen to pundits from many sources. I don’t just read one and done. I read the experts like Turley, and am struck by the observation that he never explains why he believes something. Most can. They can point to a case, or a decision, which supports their view, if only tangentially.

I watch lawyers on YouTube and the net. There are a couple favorites I could link to.

It was, as far as I know, a fair trial. The problem with the defense is they did not offer a narrative. No, that isn’t the real problem. The real problem is that Trump didn’t have a fixer worth a damn.

Other politicians do crooked things. But they hire experts to manage it. They let the fixer get control of a PAC and let the PAC do things like the hush money stuff.

Trump likes to manage things himself. And that is mistake number 1 when looking at bending or breaking laws. FDR supposedly said that if you are going to commit a crime, first hire a smart lawyer. This was when he hired Bill Donovan to run what later became the OSS. Donovan was a good lawyer and knew when to keep FDR out of the loop for plausible deniability.

I said that Trump never learned what it was to be President. He didn’t. He never got the idea behind plausible deniability.

Let’s take another Republican. Reagan and the Iran Contra scandal. The subordinates testified that Reagan had no knowledge. Nobody could find any evidence that was untrue. Reagan was insulated. A move of an experienced politician.

The same is true of Nixon. If he had called the AG when he learned about the Plumbers and Watergate, he would never had to resign. Instead he decided to take charge and manage the coverup. That was a fatal mistake.

Nobody claimed or could testify that Nixon ordered the break in. But we had a ton of proof he ordered the coverup.

Clinton was in trouble when he tried to manage it. If he had told one person the truth and let them handle it then there never would have been an impeachment hearing. But he tried to do it himself. He ended up plea bargaining just before leaving office.

You get a fixer, and after that no updates, no progress reports. Nothing. That is how you protect the politician. Any bets on if Biden has such protections? A man with a lifetime of experience in the game?

Well if this was a FARM it sure was plowed, planted and harvested.
I think you can't be faulted for not studying law. It is normal in fact. What it did for me was give me a good grounding in how to evaluate laws. Sure you might think my teacher was biased. If he was he kept it secret. I was fortunate to have the entire year of law taught by the same teacher. I got only As by the way. I was on the college Deans List. Good students make that list.
You started out making Trump points.

Turley clearly thinks the decision is wrong. And he believes it will not stand. Turley is good, not only the law but his reasoning.
I don't guess much on Trump because of things I have personally learned from politicians. I mean I knew them. I had dinner with one of them and managed for another for 6 months. I got to know how a man, a Democrat could talk as if he was honest, but the truth being he was not honest at all. He cheated me in the 1970's out of earnings I had earned.

I am tempted to post two of their names but don't want to cause problems with the forum.
I have just experienced CA legislators and attended talks by national politicians but do not rely on that much at all.

I did not hear Trump's defense. I did not hear the offense too.

Suffice as my teacher told us all the time, the Courts will decide. This is round 1.

The Speaker of the house practiced law for a long time. He talks as I talk. What do you think of what he says?