Yale Law Professor EXPOSES the UNCONSTITUTIONAL Trial Against TRUMP....

[ALightInTheDark]

This Yale law professor walks you though the supposed "crime" that Liberals say he committed. He says it was "unconstitutional" and lays out his case. Listen to the professor, hear what he has to say.

I've seen other videos of lawyers showing the preposterous nature of the charges against Trump. It seems they want him buried. After all of the stress of the cases as well as all of the lost time, they appear to want to do whatever they can to make him less competition against Biden. I'm actually concerned that these court cases may be aging Trump even more. It's sad. However, I feel we deserve better viable Democrat and Republican options than Biden and Trump.

 

[IM2]

I've seen other videos of lawyers showing the preposterous nature of the charges against Trump. It seems they want him buried. After all of the stress of the cases as well as all of the lost time, they appear to want to do whatever they can to make him less competition against Biden. I'm actually concerned that these court cases may be aging Trump even more. It's sad. However, I feel we deserve better viable Democrat and Republican options than Biden and Trump.

There was nothing preposterous about this except for the fact that Trump should have been busted while his ass was president.

 

[ALightInTheDark]

There was nothing preposterous about this except for the fact that Trump should have been busted while his ass was president.

Then why don't lawyers agree with you?

 

[IM2]

Then why don't lawyers agree with you?

They apparently do since Trump was convicted on 34 counts. What you hear on Fox ain't truth.

 

[ALightInTheDark]

They apparently do since Trump was convicted on 34 counts. What you hear on Fox ain't truth.

Not all lawyers agree though. From what I've heard, there were several problems with the way he was tried as well.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This Yale law professor walks you though the supposed "crime" that Liberals say he committed. He says it was "unconstitutional" and lays out his case. Listen to the professor, hear what he has to say.

You're saying it's unconstitutional to find someone guilty for falsifying business records?

It's been law in New York since 1986, by the looks of it. And the Supreme Court has NOT declared it unconstitutional in all the time.

Loading…

nycourts.gov

Falsifying business records - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Falsifying business records is a criminal offense in the laws of several U.S. states."

"Falsifying business records is also a crime in other states, such as Alabama,[15] Alaska,[16] California,[17] Delaware,[18] Hawaii,[19] Kentucky,[20] and Oregon.[21] In Maine, a similar crime is called falsifying private records."

And they all seem to be constitutional.

 

[forkup]

Then why don't lawyers agree with you?

Some do some don't. I've seen "lawyers" argue both sides. I've seen lawyers arguing against the objections posed by other lawyers.

Funny thing is that you can pretty much predict what "lawyers" will say depending on what side their arguing. In fact, being able to argue things that you might not personally believe is pretty much included in the job description of "lawyer".

So this leaves an appeal to authority were you can choose which authority you want to believe.

For my money, I will go with the opinion that a judge in general knows how the law should be applied. And I'll respect those that disagree with that opinion.

 

[Lisa558]

You're saying it's unconstitutional to find someone guilty for falsifying business records?

It's been law in New York since 1986, by the looks of it. And the Supreme Court has NOT declared it unconstitutional in all the time.

Loading…

nycourts.gov

Falsifying business records - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Falsifying business records is a criminal offense in the laws of several U.S. states."

"Falsifying business records is also a crime in other states, such as Alabama,[15] Alaska,[16] California,[17] Delaware,[18] Hawaii,[19] Kentucky,[20] and Oregon.[21] In Maine, a similar crime is called falsifying private records."

And they all seem to be constitutional.

It is when it’s past the statute of limitations. And don’t give me this “underlying crime” crap. There was no underlying crime, and certainly none was proven, which is why the devil judge came up with some novel decision that the jury didn’t have to be unanimous.

 

[Lisa558]

Some do some don't. I've seen "lawyers" argue both sides. I've seen lawyers arguing against the objections posed by other lawyers.

Funny thing is that you can pretty much predict what "lawyers" will say depending on what side their arguing. In fact, being able to argue things that you might not personally believe is pretty much included in the job description of "lawyer".

So this leaves an appeal to authority were you can choose which authority you want to believe.

For my money, I will go with the opinion that a judge in general knows how the law should be applied. And I'll respect those that disagree with that opinion.

A judge knows more about campaign election law that a lawyer specializing in that?

 

[forkup]

A judge knows more about campaign election law that a lawyer specializing in that?

A judge is the one that explains the law to a jury, NOT an expert witness. IF that judge gets it wrong that is cause for appeal. NOT allowing such testimony is not. This was decided pretrial even.

It is telling by the way that I haven't heard ANY lawyer point to Merchan not interpreting campaign finance law correctly. And that they focus on the not allowing an "expert" to testify. Why not simply say how Merchan got it wrong?

Smith was previously precluded from testifying about similar matters in the Southern District
of New York by I'-cderal District Court.fudgc Lcwis I(aplan. .fudge I(aplan rcasoncd that Smrth's
testimony was, as it is here, improper because it sought to instruct the iurv on matters of law. LI nited
State.r u. Bankman-Pied, 2023 WL 6162865 *1, [SD NY, Sept 21, 2023, No. 22-CR-0673 fl-AK)].
Further, thc testimony Defcndant sccks to ehcit from Smith hcrc rvas also reiectcdrn (lnited.\'lale.r u.
.fuarea N.D. Ohio .lune 24,2014, No. 5:13-cr-420, at 1.-2. In .\'uarei, the court ruled that Smith's
proposed testimonl, was not rclevant. 'l'he coutt agrced rvith thc governmcnt that "whether thc laws
are commonly misunderstood docs not weigh on whethcr defendants in lhi.r cLt.r€ rntetded to violate
campaign finance laws." l)cople's tlxhibit 2 at pgs. 2-3. 'I'hc samc holds true hcre.

 

[forkup]

A judge is the one that explains the law to a jury, NOT an expert witness. IF that judge gets it wrong that is cause for appeal. NOT allowing such testimony is not. This was decided pretrial even.

Smith was previously precluded from testifying about similar matters in the Southern District
of New York by I'-cderal District Court.fudgc Lcwis I(aplan. .fudge I(aplan rcasoncd that Smrth's
testimony was, as it is here, improper because it sought to instruct the iurv on matters of law. LI nited
State.r u. Bankman-Pied, 2023 WL 6162865 *1, [SD NY, Sept 21, 2023, No. 22-CR-0673 fl-AK)].
Further, thc testimony Defcndant sccks to ehcit from Smith hcrc rvas also reiectcdrn (lnited.\'lale.r u.
.fuarea N.D. Ohio .lune 24,2014, No. 5:13-cr-420, at 1.-2. In .\'uarei, the court ruled that Smith's
proposed testimonl, was not rclevant. 'l'he coutt agrced rvith thc governmcnt that "whether thc laws
are commonly misunderstood docs not weigh on whethcr defendants in lhi.r cLt.r€ rntetded to violate
campaign finance laws." l)cople's tlxhibit 2 at pgs. 2-3. 'I'hc samc holds true hcre.

A judge is the one that explains the law to a jury, NOT an expert witness. IF that judge gets it wrong that is cause for appeal. NOT allowing such testimony is not. This was decided pretrial even.

Smith was previously precluded from testifying about similar matters in the Southern District
of New York by I'-cderal District Court.fudgc Lcwis I(aplan. .fudge I(aplan rcasoncd that Smrth's
testimony was, as it is here, improper because it sought to instruct the iurv on matters of law. LI nited
State.r u. Bankman-Pied, 2023 WL 6162865 *1, [SD NY, Sept 21, 2023, No. 22-CR-0673 fl-AK)].
Further, thc testimony Defcndant sccks to ehcit from Smith hcrc rvas also reiectcdrn (lnited.\'lale.r u.
.fuarea N.D. Ohio .lune 24,2014, No. 5:13-cr-420, at 1.-2. In .\'uarei, the court ruled that Smith's
proposed testimonl, was not rclevant. 'l'he coutt agrced rvith thc governmcnt that "whether thc laws
are commonly misunderstood docs not weigh on whethcr defendants in lhi.r cLt.r€ rntetded to violate
campaign finance laws." l)cople's tlxhibit 2 at pgs. 2-3. 'I'hc samc holds true hcre.

Judge in Trump’s hush money trial did not bar campaign finance expert from testifying for defense

As the trial continued Tuesday, social media users misrepresented Merchan’s ruling, repeating a statement Trump made that Smith, a law professor and former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, was not being allowed to take the stand.

apnews.com

 

[forkup]

A judge is the one that explains the law to a jury, NOT an expert witness. IF that judge gets it wrong that is cause for appeal. NOT allowing such testimony is not. This was decided pretrial even.

Smith was previously precluded from testifying about similar matters in the Southern District
of New York by I'-cderal District Court.fudgc Lcwis I(aplan. .fudge I(aplan rcasoncd that Smrth's
testimony was, as it is here, improper because it sought to instruct the iurv on matters of law. LI nited
State.r u. Bankman-Pied, 2023 WL 6162865 *1, [SD NY, Sept 21, 2023, No. 22-CR-0673 fl-AK)].
Further, thc testimony Defcndant sccks to ehcit from Smith hcrc rvas also reiectcdrn (lnited.\'lale.r u.
.fuarea N.D. Ohio .lune 24,2014, No. 5:13-cr-420, at 1.-2. In .\'uarei, the court ruled that Smith's
proposed testimonl, was not rclevant. 'l'he coutt agrced rvith thc governmcnt that "whether thc laws
are commonly misunderstood docs not weigh on whethcr defendants in lhi.r cLt.r€ rntetded to violate
campaign finance laws." l)cople's tlxhibit 2 at pgs. 2-3. 'I'hc samc holds true hcre.

A judge is the one that explains the law to a jury, NOT an expert witness. IF that judge gets it wrong that is cause for appeal. NOT allowing such testimony is not. This was decided pretrial even.

Smith was previously precluded from testifying about similar matters in the Southern District
of New York by I'-cderal District Court.fudgc Lcwis I(aplan. .fudge I(aplan rcasoncd that Smrth's
testimony was, as it is here, improper because it sought to instruct the iurv on matters of law. LI nited
State.r u. Bankman-Pied, 2023 WL 6162865 *1, [SD NY, Sept 21, 2023, No. 22-CR-0673 fl-AK)].
Further, thc testimony Defcndant sccks to ehcit from Smith hcrc rvas also reiectcdrn (lnited.\'lale.r u.
.fuarea N.D. Ohio .lune 24,2014, No. 5:13-cr-420, at 1.-2. In .\'uarei, the court ruled that Smith's
proposed testimonl, was not rclevant. 'l'he coutt agrced rvith thc governmcnt that "whether thc laws
are commonly misunderstood docs not weigh on whethcr defendants in lhi.r cLt.r€ rntetded to violate
campaign finance laws." l)cople's tlxhibit 2 at pgs. 2-3. 'I'hc samc holds true hcre.

The Limitations Regarding the Testimony of Expert Witnesses

Although expert witnesses have a fairly broad scope, there are also areas into which expert witnesses should generally refrain from stepping.

apuedge.com

A second area in which expert witnesses should generally avoid testimony is legal opinions. Legal opinions from experts are usually not permitted by courts, because a legal interpretation is for the judge to handle, accompanied by supporting information and argument from the case’s attorneys. And expert witnesses should not encroach on these responsibilities.


This isn't a rule anyone invented for Trump.

 

[Lisa558]

A judge is the one that explains the law to a jury, NOT an expert witness. IF that judge gets it wrong that is cause for appeal. NOT allowing such testimony is not. This was decided pretrial even.

Smith was previously precluded from testifying about similar matters in the Southern District
of New York by I'-cderal District Court.fudgc Lcwis I(aplan. .fudge I(aplan rcasoncd that Smrth's
testimony was, as it is here, improper because it sought to instruct the iurv on matters of law. LI nited
State.r u. Bankman-Pied, 2023 WL 6162865 *1, [SD NY, Sept 21, 2023, No. 22-CR-0673 fl-AK)].
Further, thc testimony Defcndant sccks to ehcit from Smith hcrc rvas also reiectcdrn (lnited.\'lale.r u.
.fuarea N.D. Ohio .lune 24,2014, No. 5:13-cr-420, at 1.-2. In .\'uarei, the court ruled that Smith's
proposed testimonl, was not rclevant. 'l'he coutt agrced rvith thc governmcnt that "whether thc laws
are commonly misunderstood docs not weigh on whethcr defendants in lhi.r cLt.r€ rntetded to violate
campaign finance laws." l)cople's tlxhibit 2 at pgs. 2-3. 'I'hc samc holds true hcre.

A judge isn’t an expert on all aspects of law. That’s why there are legal specialties.

The truth is the judge didn’t want the jury to hear that what Trump did was not a crime.

 

[Lisa558]

The Limitations Regarding the Testimony of Expert Witnesses

Although expert witnesses have a fairly broad scope, there are also areas into which expert witnesses should generally refrain from stepping.

apuedge.com

A second area in which expert witnesses should generally avoid testimony is legal opinions. Legal opinions from experts are usually not permitted by courts, because a legal interpretation is for the judge to handle, accompanied by supporting information and argument from the case’s attorneys. And expert witnesses should not encroach on these responsibilities.


This isn't a rule anyone invented for Trump.

The entire CASE was Invented specifically for Trump.

 

[forkup]

A judge isn’t an expert on all aspects of law. That’s why there are legal specialties.

The truth is the judge didn’t want the jury to hear that what Trump did was not a crime.

Again a judge IS the only recognized expert on the law in a courtroom with the authority to interpret the law. It's literally his job to explain the law to the jury in a court.

IF he doesn't do this correctly and makes mistakes in the interpretation, a defense has every right to appeal.

You are claiming though that the defense can call in an "expert" to openly contradict the judge in front of a jury. As long as he holds the correct "legal specialty" making him a de facto second judge. This one paid for by the defense.

If that sounds wrong to you, it's because it is.

 

[Lisa558]

Again a judge IS the only recognized expert on the law in a courtroom with the authority to interpret the law. It's literally his job to explain the law to the jury in a court.

That doesn’t work when you have a judge determined to keep Trump out of office and who lies to the jury about the law.

IF he doesn't do this correctly and makes faults.in the interpretation a defense has every right to appeal.

Yes, and Trump will win.

You are claiming though that the defense can call in an "expert" to openly contradict the judge in front of a jury. As long as he holds the correct "legal specialty" making him a de facto second judge. This one paid for by the defense.

No, it shows that the judge is NOT the expert, and in this case, he outright lied to the jury to get them to convict.

 

[forkup]

That doesn’t work when you have a judge determined to keep Trump out of office and who lies to the jury about the law.

Begging the question

Yes, and Trump will win.

Begging the question

No, it shows that the judge is NOT the expert, and in this case, he outright lied to the jury to get them to convict.

Again, begging the question.

Making assertions is not the same thing as supporting those assertions.

I've taken the time to explain my reasoning to you. I've supported that reasoning both by giving links and appealing to actual logic.

If you're only comeback is "because I said so", that's fine by me. It just tells me you don't have a real comeback.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I've seen other videos of lawyers showing the preposterous nature of the charges against Trump. It seems they want him buried. After all of the stress of the cases as well as all of the lost time, they appear to want to do whatever they can to make him less competition against Biden. I'm actually concerned that these court cases may be aging Trump even more. It's sad. However, I feel we deserve better viable Democrat and Republican options than Biden and Trump.

So you're saying Trump didn't break the law?

And there are lawyers who are Trump supporters who will justify anything Trump does. Doesn't make them right.

 

[Moonglow]

Alan D has posted essays and videos making the same point. As an attorney I can tell you absolutely, there is no question that the trial in Manhattan was a judicial horror show, with SEVERAL reversible errors.

What is going on now is that Leftists are insisting that it was "cool," just like, "the 2020 election was the most secure election in American history." Even THEY don't believe it, but they keep saying it because they are powerless to show any integrity.

Don't bother arguing about it anymore. It will be overturned on appeal.

Still crying over legally losing an election, how pathetic can one be?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Wow, the blob should have called him as a witness.

He wasn't allowed to actually call witnesses that would help his case.