Only 1 in 3 US adults think Trump acted illegally in New York hush money case, AP-NORC poll shows

[Pommer]

Everyone involved, ever D.A., every judge that is attacking our Constitution, that has violated the law, needs to be held accountable. That is how it should be.

How is the system-working-as-it-is-designed-to-work=“attacking our Constitution”?

 

[Desk trauma]

How is the system-working-as-it-is-designed-to-work=“attacking our Constitution”?

He is the constitution made flesh.

 

[Pommer]

He is the constitution made flesh.

I await the video of him walking across the Rubicon Potomac.

 

[Valletta]

How is the system-working-as-it-is-designed-to-work=“attacking our Constitution”?

A jury of peers does not mean a jury of Joe Biden supporters. Nor is a biased judge supposed to try a case. Nor should the defendant be banned from speaking. Manufacturing a felony charge derived from a misdemeanor charge where the statute of limitations has run out in order to get one man is mocking our law. All of the taxpayer money improperly used for political reasons is to tie up Trump and get him convicted of something before the election even though such a conviction will be overturned. A lot of Americans see this as cheating in an election, election interference.

 

[A2SG]

A jury of peers does not mean a jury of Joe Biden supporters.

What makes you think everyone on the jury supports President Biden? Voie dire, remember?

Nor is a biased judge supposed to try a case.

No indication of bias has been shown. Sure, some assume it...but they're gonna, no matter what. If you want to recuse a judge, you have to show actual bias, not just assume it.

Nor should the defendant be banned from speaking.

Considering Trump has already made public, derogatory, even defamatory statements about potential witnesses, a limited gag order seems wise. Especially since his followers have shown they're more than willing to threaten those potential witnesses on his behalf.

Manufactured a felony charge derived from a misdemeanor charge where the statute of limitations has run out in order to get one man is mocking our law. All of the taxpayer money improperly used for political reasons is to tie up Trump and get him convicted of something before the election even though such a conviction will be overturned. A lot of Americans see this as cheating in an election, election interference.

Those "lot of Americans" haven't seen the evidence the prosecution has. Nor would they be convinced by it, even if they did. Their minds are made up already.

They'd all be disqualified as jurors during voie dire for cause.

It all boils down to this: Is Trump above the law? Clearly, you believe he is.

Some of us disagree.

-- A2SG, we'll have to see how the jury decides, once they've seen the evidence......

 

[Valletta]

What makes you think everyone on the jury supports President Biden? Voie dire, remember?


No indication of bias has been shown. Sure, some assume it...but they're gonna, no matter what. If you want to recuse a judge, you have to show actual bias, not just assume it.


Considering Trump has already made public, derogatory, even defamatory statements about potential witnesses, a limited gag order seems wise. Especially since his followers have shown they're more than willing to threaten those potential witnesses on his behalf.


Those "lot of Americans" haven't seen the evidence the prosecution has. Nor would they be convinced by it, even if they did. Their minds are made up already.

They'd all be disqualified as jurors during voie dire for cause.

It all boils down to this: Is Trump above the law? Clearly, you believe he is.

Some of us disagree.

-- A2SG, we'll have to see how the jury decides, once they've seen the evidence......

You avoided the manufactured charges. Criminal charges in four jurisdictions at once against the leading candidate for president in election season. That's an attack against our democratic elections and an attack against our Republic. The people have a duty to not allow this to continue.

 

[A2SG]

You avoided the manufactured charges.

Whether or not the charges are valid will be determined by the evidence. Clearly, that evidence was sufficient to indict, so the validity of the charges must not be as obvious to the rest of the judicial system, including those with experience in NY law, as they are to you.

Criminal charges in four jurisdictions at once against the leading candidate for president in election season.

Apparently, we've not see a presidential candidate who has skirted the law as much as Trump has. He already has a couple of guilty verdicts under his belt so far, we'll have to see if there are any more.

That's an attack against our democratic elections and an attack against our Republic. The people have a duty to not allow this to continue.

The judicial system functioning as it's supposed to is not an attack against the republic. It's how it's supposed to work. Just let the system do it's job, and we'll see how it turns out.

But, let's face it, you've never accepted the validity of any of the many charges levied against Trump anyway, so your bias may be clouding your view of the legal issues involved.

For my part, I'll accept the verdict whatever it is. I still won't vote for the guy, and will continue to hope that most Americans won't, but I'd do that even if there were no indictments.

-- A2SG, and so far, in both elections he's been a part of, more people voted for the other candidate than did for him, so.....

 

[Bradskii]

A jury of peers does not mean a jury of Joe Biden supporters. Nor is a biased judge supposed to try a case. Nor should the defendant be banned from speaking. Manufacturing a felony charge derived from a misdemeanor charge where the statute of limitations has run out in order to get one man is mocking our law. All of the taxpayer money improperly used for political reasons is to tie up Trump and get him convicted of something before the election even though such a conviction will be overturned. A lot of Americans see this as cheating in an election, election interference.

Good to know that if you were called to be on the jury then you'd have excused yourself.

 

[Pommer]

A jury of peers does not mean a jury of Joe Biden supporters. Nor is a biased judge supposed to try a case. Nor should the defendant be banned from speaking. Manufacturing a felony charge derived from a misdemeanor charge where the statute of limitations has run out in order to get one man is mocking our law. All of the taxpayer money improperly used for political reasons is to tie up Trump and get him convicted of something before the election even though such a conviction will be overturned. A lot of Americans see this as cheating in an election, election interference.

Keep complaining about how unfair the Justice system is to a rich man, I’m sure there will be plenty of people who agree with you.

 

[Valletta]

Keep complaining about how unfair the Justice system is to a rich man, I’m sure there will be plenty of people who agree with you.

He's the leading presidential candidate of the people of the United States, and the people are mostly low income or middle class. It is improper to violate someone's Constitutional rights based upon how successful they are in business or because of their politics.

 

[wing2000]

He's the leading presidential candidate of the people of the United States, and the people are mostly low income or middle class. It is improper to violate someone's Constitutional rights based upon how successful they are in business or because of their politics.

It was his choice to run.
Republican primary voters had other choices. They chose the candidate with multiple charges against him in multiple courts. Own it.
As a defendant, you don't have any right to attack or otherwise try intimidating a jury or any officer of the court.

 

[Valletta]

It was his choice to run.
Republican primary voters had other choices. They chose the candidate with multiple charges against him in multiple courts. Own it.
As a defendant, you don't have any right to attack or otherwise try intimidating a jury or any officer of the court.

Those who have violated our Constitution are the ones who need to "own it." A defendant has every right to speak, officers of the court have no right to attack Trump or violate his rights.

 

[wing2000]

Those who have violated our Constitution are the ones who need to "own it." A defendant has every right to speak, officers of the court have no right to attack Trump or violate his rights.

Who has violated the Constution?
Which officer of the court has "attacked" Trump.

I suggest you step up and start owning your own narrative.

 

[Hank77]

Those who have violated our Constitution are the ones who need to "own it." A defendant has every right to speak, officers of the court have no right to attack Trump or violate his rights.

Are gag orders a violation of the Constitution? They can be but when applied correctly to a particular instance they are not.

I think they are a legal tool of the court to control the unruly actions of some people, someone who continues to violate a court order to control their vicious tongue in this case.

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/Clarification-OrderRestrictingES.pdf

Courts are understandably concerned about the First Amendment rights of a defendant, especially when the accused is a public figure. U.S. u. Ford,830 F2d 596 [1987]...

What Is a Gag Order? Definition, Examples and More

What is a gag order? Is it a challenge to our First Amendment rights? Here's everything you need to know about gag orders.

www.freedomforum.org

Such orders should be of concern anytime they are issued. The public and defendants have a First Amendment right and need to publicly review, critique and comment on the performance of the judicial system. This holds courts accountable and sustains public support for their operations. But that right may run up against the Sixth Amendment right guaranteeing a fair trial.

A trial is not fair if witnesses and jurors are too frightened to take part in the trial.

 

[Valletta]

Are gag orders a violation of the Constitution? They can be but when applied correctly to a particular instance they are not.

Gag orders on defendants are extremely rare. This is because according to the U.S. Constitution there is a presumption of innocence and the Bill of Rights is very much about protecting the rights of a defendant. So too they are making an exception for Trump to have the time to examine the massive amount of evidentiary records provided--the judge is not granting Trump enough time. This almost never happens to a defendant. Likewise Trump's attorneys are not able to give fair representation because they are simultaneously hitting Trump with four trials in four distinct jurisdictions. Also most judges would have recused to prevent even a suggestion of lack of impartiality. All of this means the cases will eventually be thrown out on appeal, but the idea is to tie Trump up so Biden, who's campaign has been funded by wealthy donors, can dominate in campaigning and Trump can also be called a convicted criminal. Any way they can prevent a fair election process, whether by keeping Trump off of the ballot, by violating his rights under the Constitution, by preventing proper identification of voters, or by exploiting weaknesses in the chain of custody of ballots is fair game to the hard left.

 

[Desk trauma]

Gag orders on defendants are extremely rare. This is because according to the U.S. Constitution there is a presumption of innocence and the Bill of Rights is very much about protecting the rights of a defendant. So too they are making an exception for Trump to have the time to examine the massive amount of evidentiary records provided--the judge is not granting Trump enough time. This almost never happens to a defendant. Likewise Trump's attorneys are not able to give fair representation because they are simultaneously hitting Trump with four trials in four distinct jurisdictions. Also most judges would have recused to prevent even a suggestion of lack of impartiality. All of this means the cases will eventually be thrown out on appeal, but the idea is to tie Trump up so Biden, who's campaign has been funded by wealthy donors, can dominate in campaigning and Trump can also be called a convicted criminal. Any way they can cheat in an election, by keeping Trump off of the ballot, by violating his rights under the Constitution, by preventing proper identification of voters, or by exploiting weaknesses in the chain of custody of ballots is fair game to the hard left.

Yes, poorest most persecuted man ever, our man of perpetual victimhood.

 

[durangodawood]

Yet, a cloud of doubt hangs over all the proceedings. Only about 3 in 10 Americans feel that any of the prosecutors who have brought charges against Trump are treating the former president fairly.....

Most people dont even know what the alleged crime is.

They think its paying "hush money" for his adult film star affair. But its not.

 

[rambot]

He's the leading presidential candidate of the people of the United States, and the people are mostly low income or middle class. It is improper to violate someone's Constitutional rights based upon how successful they are in business or because of their politics.

This take is so hot you could use it to smelt iron ore.

 

[Hank77]

Gag orders on defendants are extremely rare. This is because according to the U.S. Constitution there is a presumption of innocence and the Bill of Rights is very much about protecting the rights of a defendant. So too they are making an exception for Trump to have the time to examine the massive amount of evidentiary records provided--the judge is not granting Trump enough time. This almost never happens to a defendant. Likewise Trump's attorneys are not able to give fair representation because they are simultaneously hitting Trump with four trials in four distinct jurisdictions. Also most judges would have recused to prevent even a suggestion of lack of impartiality. All of this means the cases will eventually be thrown out on appeal, but the idea is to tie Trump up so Biden, who's campaign has been funded by wealthy donors, can dominate in campaigning and Trump can also be called a convicted criminal. Any way they can prevent a fair election process, whether by keeping Trump off of the ballot, by violating his rights under the Constitution, by preventing proper identification of voters, or by exploiting weaknesses in the chain of custody of ballots is fair game to the hard left.

Your response sounds like a Trump interview.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Gag orders on defendants are extremely rare. This is because according to the U.S. Constitution there is a presumption of innocence and the Bill of Rights is very much about protecting the rights of a defendant.

Gag orders have nothing to do with guilt or innocence. They're rare because the government tries to avoid being in the business of limiting speech. At the same time, it can be necessary to do so if someone's speech is threatening the validity of the trial (like, for instance, encouraging people to attack or threaten participants in the trial).

So too they are making an exception for Trump to have the time to examine the massive amount of evidentiary records provided--the judge is not granting Trump enough time. This almost never happens to a defendant.

Trump and his lawyers have delayed his trials for years. They've had plenty of time to review the evidence.

Likewise Trump's attorneys are not able to give fair representation because they are simultaneously hitting Trump with four trials in four distinct jurisdictions.

That does tend to happen when you keep delaying your trials. They have to happen eventually, and the longer you delay, the more likely it becomes that they'll all happen at about the same time.

Also most judges would have recused to prevent even a suggestion of lack of impartiality.

Why would you think that most judges would have a suggestion of impartiality?

All of this means the cases will eventually be thrown out on appeal, but the idea is to tie Trump up so Biden, who's campaign has been funded by wealthy donors, can dominate in campaigning and Trump can also be called a convicted criminal. Any way they can prevent a fair election process, whether by keeping Trump off of the ballot, by violating his rights under the Constitution, by preventing proper identification of voters, or by exploiting weaknesses in the chain of custody of ballots is fair game to the hard left.

Yes, yes, it's all a big conspiracy by the "hard left." One they've somehow managed to keep anyone from spilling the beans on for almost a decade now. Color me skeptical.