Was Trump's NYC Trial Fair?

[Independent thinker]

This will decide the issue. Was Trump's trial fair?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

This will decide the issue. Was Trump's trial fair?

.

NO

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Was Trump's NYC Trial Fair?​

Of course it was.​

"A fundamental principle behind the right to a fair trial is that every person should be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty."
The judge told the jury that to convict Trump on any given charge, they will have to find unanimously — that is, all 12 jurors must agree — that the former president created a fraudulent entry in his company’s records or caused someone else to do so, and that he did so with the intent of committing or concealing a crime.

Prosecutors say the crime Trump committed or hid is a violation of a New York election law making it illegal for two or more conspirators “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”


next

 

[Donald H]

Fair or not, it will most likely decide the fate of a huge number of trials of importance in America from now on.
Depending for the most part by the brand of the president.

Hunter has probably lucked out by being one of the first test cases.
And after Trump got swatted 34 times, his faithful aren't going to be all that pleased to see Hunter walk!

fkn misfit druggie, sexual deviant whacko Dem, spawn of the satan, etc!

 

[MisterBeale]

Given the way the establishment had treated him previously? Probably not.

Prosecutors Got Trump — But They Also Contorted the Law

The Manhattan jury was thrown into a Frankenstein’s monster of a case.

nymag.com

https://archive.ph/fjqIN

". . . The following are all undeniable facts.

The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? Absolutely not.

District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran for office in an overwhelmingly Democratic county by touting his Trump-hunting prowess. He bizarrely (and falsely) boasted on the campaign trail, “It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times.” (Disclosure: Both Bragg and Trump’s lead counsel, Todd Blanche, are friends and former colleagues of mine at the Southern District of New York.)

Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. That’s not on the jury. That’s on the prosecutors who chose to bring the case and the judge who let it play out as it did.

The district attorney’s press office and its flaks often proclaim that falsification of business records charges are “commonplace” and, indeed, the office’s “bread and butter.” That’s true only if you draw definitional lines so broad as to render them meaningless. Of course the DA charges falsification quite frequently; virtually any fraud case involves some sort of fake documentation.

But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge.

Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega. Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor — two years — likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017.

So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.) . . . "

 

[Oddball]

no

 

[Skylar]

no

What about it was unfair?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

What about it was unfair?

.

No big surprise a leftist can't figure that out.

LOL!!!!!!

Think hard about it. You might get it eventually.









.

 

[Skylar]

.

No big surprise a leftist can't figure that out.

LOL!!!!!!

Think hard about it. You might get it eventually.









.

Smiling.....so you can't cite anything that was unfair.

Well that was easy.

 

[lafayette]

This will decide the issue. Was Trump's trial fair?

Yep, for sure.

 

[MisterBeale]

Smiling.....so you can't cite anything that was unfair.

Well that was easy.

You can read the entire NYmag article penned by;

Elie Honig (born April 3, 1975) is an American attorney and legal commentator. He is the senior legal analyst for CNN. Previously, Honig was an assistant United States Attorney.

Elie Honig - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

. . . in post #5 if you are still confused.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yes

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Smiling.....so you can't cite anything that was unfair.

Well that was easy.

.

Nor can you cite anything that was fair.

I'm not going to play this game.

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

.

No big surprise a leftist can't figure that out.

LOL!!!!!!

Think hard about it. You might get it eventually.
.

I stand with Skylar

"What about it was unfair?"

Come on. Man up. Show us you can do it.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I stand with Skylar

"What about it was unfair?"

Come on. Man up. Show us you can do it.

.

Not playing the left-pig game with you. You just keep whining. I have better things to do.








.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

Hell to the NO!

 

[Skylar]

.

Nor can you cite anything that was fair.

I'm not going to play this game.

.

Sure I can. The grand jury process was the same for Trump as anyone. The jury selection process. He had a trial like anyone else, had appeal after appeal opportunity like anyone else. Was subject to the judgment of a jury of his peers like anyone else. Was held to the standard of 'beyond a reasonable' doubt, like anyone else. Could call witnesses like anyone else.

What about due process was unfair?

 

[ReinyDays]

The trial was conducted fairly ... in every way ... the procedure is booked ...

I think most responders here in this thread are addressing the decision to prosecute ... which was strictly political, and politics is never fair ... these charges were filed in time to splash the pre-election media with tales of Trump's infidelity ...

New York voters want this ... nothing you can do about it ... the tyranny of the majority ...

I approve ... mainly because I'd like to see the Biden Clan tried ... and punished ... hang them all, THEN maybe we'll get spending control ...

 

[lafayette]

The trial was fair. The appeal will stand.

 

[candycorn]

Yes