Criminal Charges Against Trump / Trump Indicted / Hush Money Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, Donny Tr@●sh can appeal.

He's the most unappealing man in the world, but hey, I didn't invent the English language.
 
shemp said:
Upon further review, I would like to issue a public apology to Stacyhs. Stacy, I apologize for calling you, in the heat of the moment, a "PITA." It was uncalled for. I still disagree with you on some of these matters, such as how much people should be celebrating, and the level of consequences Von Schitzinpants is presently suffering. But to call you a name was wrong.
Click to expand...
Stand-up move. 👍
 
steenkh said:
Can Trump appeal?

(I have read about 100 posts in this thread, but I didn’t find this, although I’m sure it must have been discussed)
Click to expand...

Yes he can and I'm sure his legal team will put forward many reasons why including:

-The gag order and his ability to testify
- Stormy Daniels talking about their sexual relationship
- The judge admonishing Costello
- The judge's jury instructions
- Procedural issues that prevented them presenting exculpatory evidence
- The political motivation for the trial

Even if none of them have any merit, they'll use up time and delay (possibly indefinitely) any consequences for President Trump.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Elon says

"Great damage was done today to the public’s faith in the American legal system.
If a former President can be criminally convicted over such a trivial matter – motivated by politics, rather than justice – then anyone is at risk of a similar fate."
Click to expand...

I'm going to admit to a tension when indicting a politician, but the above doesn't help consider how to negotiate that tension.

First of all, Elon wasn't in the jury room, so he's assuming a lot; that regular citizens can't put aside political bias to judge a politician. And, there's the matter of juror @2, an investment banker (!) who follows Trump on Truth Social; what, did that juror just check out and follow the crowd?

But we have to acknowledge that indicting (note: not convicting yet, just indicting) a person opens up the possibility of bias against that type of person. I think I don't have to specify a certain type of people who are indicted far more than they should be to make the point that bias in indicting is a thing.

But on the other hand, that can potentially apply to anyone or any type of person. To reject an indictment because of the possibility of bias is untenable; no one would ever be indicted. But we still have to police the system to remove such bias as much as we can.

It boils down to Trump supporters conflating the possibility of bias with the reality of it. Just because it's possible - DA Bragg is a Democrat - that means that it happened. They need to bring actual evidence against Bragg if they think bias was operating.

That evidence of bias has to be more than Bragg is a Democrat, because if that were enough, then what prosecutions could ever happen? Democratic politicians could only be prosecuted by Democratic DAs?

That is the insidious nature of what Trump supporters are arguing; that no one can operate according to principles in the legal system; not jurors, not judges, not DAs, etc. That tears down the rule of law pretty well.

And yet we still have to guard against bias, because it does happen. As with so many things, we just need the evidence, and a good standard for that evidence as well.

That's as long-winded as I get, I guess. I'm out of breath just typing that much.
 
Last edited:
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Plus, the USA is not a member of the International Criminal Court. It's rulings are not the Law of the Land.
Click to expand...

That's not relevant.
If US citizens commit crimes against humanity in a place that is a member of the ICC jurisdiction, they can be indicted.
Gaza is such a territory.
 
steenkh said:
Can Trump appeal?

(I have read about 100 posts in this thread, but I didn’t find this, although I’m sure it must have been discussed)
Click to expand...

He may appeal "as of right" to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court. That means the appeal must be heard. The "supreme" court in New York is the lower court that's able to hear felony charges. From there he can appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in New York state and hears only appeals for which it grants certiorari.
 
It appears to be the unanimous opinion of Forum trumpists that this trial is a smashing victory for Donny and his followers.

And that's altogether fitting and proper. Stark staring blatant blaring denial of reality is their invariable tactic -- you might suspect it's a genetically programmed response -- no matter what.

Don't underestimate that tactic. It's carried them this far, and they sure & hell won't change now.

I don't believe I'm kidding.
 
sackett said:
It appears to be the unanimous opinion of Forum trumpists that this trial is a smashing victory for Donny and his followers.
Click to expand...

It's distilled cope. If they think it's so great, we should all join hands and encourage Donald to plead guilty to all pending charges. He'll be "winning" so much they'll get sick of it.
 
JayUtah said:
Looks like Trump's latest excuse for not having testified is that he would have been charged with perjury if he had. It's like he lives in a completely different world than, well, the rest of the world. "The trial was so rigged they wouldn't let me lie under oath."
Click to expand...

He's probably right. Does anyone think for a second that Trump wouldn't lie under oath?

It's hilarious for anyone to think poor Trump. They're picking on him. They're not letting him break the law capriciously.

Before people get outraged over Trump being convicted of this relatively minor crime. (relative to the 50 something other crimes Trump has been indicted for] They should remember that Trump is being protected from prosecution in those other cases by corrupt judges.
 
I Am The Scum said:
It's distilled cope. If they think it's so great, we should all join hands and encourage Donald to plead guilty to all pending charges. He'll be "winning" so much they'll get sick of it.
Click to expand...

But they need a conviction, not a guilty plea. So let's move up the date of all his trials so they get completed before the election. If he's convicted of everything, he's sure to get 100% of the popular vote!
 
Paul2 said:
That evidence of bias has to be more than Bragg is a Democrat, because if that were enough, then what prosecutions could ever happen? Democratic politicians could only be prosecuted by Democratic DAs?
Click to expand...

Ah, you're inferring a symmetry that they're not implying. It's not that each party is unfair to the other, it's that Democrats are Bad.

See, Democrat DAs would go easy on Democrat politicians; only Republican DAs could be trusted to fairly go after Democrat politicians. Similarly, only Republican DAs should prosecute Republican politicians because a Democrat DA would cheat to get a conviction.

It's similar to the idea that Judge Merchan can't be fair to Trump because his daughter has done some work for Democrats, while the fact that Judge Cannon was actually appointed by Trump should not lead one to question her fairness. Merchan's family is contaminated with Democration, while Cannon reeks of wholesome Republicanity.

(I know people who really truly think like this)
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I believe I heard he must wait until sentenced to appeal - I think it was then either a 30 to 60 day window after that.
Click to expand...

I think you're right. Contrary to what I wrote yesterday, New York criminal procedure does seem to require that the judgment conclude with a sentence before it becomes ripe for appeal.
 
acbytesla said:
He's probably right. Does anyone think for a second that Trump wouldn't lie under oath?
Click to expand...

I absolutely think he would, and not even think there's anything wrong with that. He's used to living in a world that is "factually" as he thinks it is, from moment to moment. His lawyers were already hamstrung by his having admitted in public to several of the elements of the crimes he was convicted of. So I think the humor resides no so much in the notion that Trump's excuse is bogus, as it does in the notion that Trump doesn't even contemplate that telling the truth would have been an option.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom