New York Judge Says Donald Trump Can’t Attend Supreme Court Argument Next Week

[Valletta]

New York Judge Says Donald Trump Can’t Attend Supreme Court Argument Next Week – Update

Trump's attorneys asked for him to be excused from his hush money trial on that date.

deadline.com

There is no valid reason why Trump must be forced to attend this farce of a trial. It has been quite common to have no-disclosure agreements and people don't get charged for keeping such agreements quiet. That is, people don't get charged in such cases until Trump. The judge is seeking control to keep Trump there, and keep Trump off of the campaign trail if he can.

 

[Pommer]

New York Judge Says Donald Trump Can’t Attend Supreme Court Argument Next Week – Update

Trump's attorneys asked for him to be excused from his hush money trial on that date.

deadline.com

There is no valid reason why Trump must be forced to attend this farce of a trial. It has been quite common to have no-disclosure agreements and people don't get charged for keeping such agreements quiet. That is, people don't get charged in such cases until Trump. The judge is seeking control to keep Trump there, and keep Trump off of the campaign trail if he can.

The New York trial isn’t about NDAs, but whether candidate-Trump falsified business documents to hide the hush-money payment, that, in itself, was an undisclosed campaign finance law violation.
Breaking the law to cover another instance of law breaking is a felony in this case.

 

[Yttrium]

I hope that Donald will ignore the judge's unfair decision and do what he wants. When was any other defendant ever required to attend a criminal trial?

...

I may have ulterior motives for this hope.

 

[Hans Blaster]

New York Judge Says Donald Trump Can’t Attend Supreme Court Argument Next Week – Update

Trump's attorneys asked for him to be excused from his hush money trial on that date.

deadline.com

There is no valid reason why Trump must be forced to attend this farce of a trial. It has been quite common to have no-disclosure agreements and people don't get charged for keeping such agreements quiet. That is, people don't get charged in such cases until Trump. The judge is seeking control to keep Trump there, and keep Trump off of the campaign trail if he can.

He's a criminal defendant at trial. He doesn't get to go elsewhere just because he wants to.

 

[Valletta]

The New York trial isn’t about NDAs, but whether candidate-Trump falsified business documents to hide the hush-money payment, that, in itself, was an undisclosed campaign finance law violation.
Breaking the law to cover another instance of law breaking is a felony in this case.

It's about election interference, plain and simple. Trump broke no law. The judge once again is abusing his authority. There is no valid reason to keep Trump in the court room, the Constitution provides for the rights of the DEFENDANT to attend a trial, the defendant is not required to be there.

 

[Valletta]

You have case law to prove this ?

Sixth Amendment​

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.'

"The accused shall enjoy the right" refers to the rights of the accused, not of the judge.

 

[Valletta]

He's a criminal defendant at trial. He doesn't get to go elsewhere just because he wants to.

In the United States citizens are free to travel within the fifty states. We also have what is called "a presumption of innocence."

 

[adrianmonk]

Sixth Amendment​

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.'

"The accused shall enjoy the right" refers to the rights of the accused, not of the judge.

Read my question along with what I was referring to from your post.

 

[Valletta]

The New York trial isn’t about NDAs, but whether candidate-Trump falsified business documents to hide the hush-money payment, that, in itself, was an undisclosed campaign finance law violation.
Breaking the law to cover another instance of law breaking is a felony in this case.

Trump broke no law. Radical Democrat after Democrat turned down the case because there is no way they can prove Trump had intent to commit a crime. You categorize as your attorney tells you, and obviously don't put down much detail in order not to draw attention--that's the whole point of these agreements. The reason behind bringing charges is that Trump declared he would run for president. I'm really sick of these arrogant judges and attorneys who think THEY should decide who will be president and not the American people. They are committing the real crimes of election interference.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In the United States citizens are free to travel within the fifty states. We also have what is called "a presumption of innocence."

Defendants are required to attend trials. Defendants do not have the full freedom of travel as non-defendants. Some are detained pre-trial, others have passports withheld, etc.

 

[Bradskii]

In the United States citizens are free to travel within the fifty states. We also have what is called "a presumption of innocence."

From here: Rule 43. Defendant's Presence


(a) When Required. Unless this rule, Rule 5, or Rule 10 provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at:

(1) the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea;

(2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict; and

(3) sentencing.

(b) When Not Required. A defendant need not be present under any of the following circumstances:

(1) Organizational Defendant. The defendant is an organization represented by counsel who is present.

(2) Misdemeanor Offense. The offense is punishable by fine or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and with the defendant's written consent, the court permits arraignment, plea, trial, and sentencing to occur by video teleconferencing or in the defendant's absence.

(3) Conference or Hearing on a Legal Question. The proceeding involves only a conference or hearing on a question of law.

(4) Sentence Correction. The proceeding involves the correction or reduction of sentence under Rule 35 or 18 U.S.C. §3582 (c).

 

[Bradskii]

It's about election interference, plain and simple.

Well, in effect you got that right. It's claimed that payments made were intended to keep info from the public prior to the election and were hidden as legal expenses.

Trump broke no law.

That will be decided over the next few weeks. What he is charged with is this: Trump's "hush money" trial is getting underway. Here's what to know.

'"The allegations are, in substance, that Donald Trump falsified business records to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election. Specifically, it is alleged that Donald Trump made or caused false business records to hide the true nature of payments made to Michael Cohen, by characterizing them as payment for legal services rendered pursuant to a retainer agreement. The People allege that in fact, the payments were intended to reimburse Michael Cohen for money he paid to Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, in the weeks before the presidential election to prevent her from publicly revealing details about a past sexual encounter with Donald Trump."

 

[SavedByGrace3]

They are just having a fun time bullying a previous and future president. It's cheap and petty.

 

[Fantine]

There are 34 charges. Some are about campaign finance. Some are about obstruction. Trump's election interference.
34 charges and you really feel every single one is unwarranted?
Trump doesn't have to give us his completely dishonest blow by blows.
If he wants to tell his story let him do it under oath in testimony...
Where he will probably take the 5th or add perjury to his offenses.

 

[AlexB23]

From here: Rule 43. Defendant's Presence


(a) When Required. Unless this rule, Rule 5, or Rule 10 provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at:

(1) the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea;

(2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict; and

(3) sentencing.

(b) When Not Required. A defendant need not be present under any of the following circumstances:

(1) Organizational Defendant. The defendant is an organization represented by counsel who is present.

(2) Misdemeanor Offense. The offense is punishable by fine or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and with the defendant's written consent, the court permits arraignment, plea, trial, and sentencing to occur by video teleconferencing or in the defendant's absence.

(3) Conference or Hearing on a Legal Question. The proceeding involves only a conference or hearing on a question of law.

(4) Sentence Correction. The proceeding involves the correction or reduction of sentence under Rule 35 or 18 U.S.C. §3582 (c).

Amen brother, thanks for putting the Fox News following population in their place. It is good that you quoted U.S law. It seems that Donald will try everything in his power to break said law. Also, for anyone else here who still follows Fox, here is a BBC article about Trump's 4 indictments: A guide to Donald Trump's four criminal cases

 

[Valletta]

They are just having a fun time bullying a previous and future president. It's cheap and petty.

Indeed. It sounds like the judge won't let Trump go to his son's graduation, and already the judge won't let the Jewish judges off for celebration of the Passover.

 

[AlexB23]

Indeed. It sounds like the judge won't let Trump go to his son's graduation, and already the judge won't let the Jewish judges off for celebration of the Passover.

Can you back this up with evidence from a balanced news source such as AP, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian or Reuters? And ideally, not evidence from sensationalist sources such as Fox (Faux) or Breitbart?

Handy chart for media bias, and a pun:

 

[Valletta]

Amen brother, thanks for putting the Fox News following population in their place. It is good that you quoted U.S law. It seems that Donald will try everything in his power to break said law. Also, for anyone else here who still follows Fox, here is a BBC article about Trump's 4 indictments: A guide to Donald Trump's four criminal cases

As I stated, defendants have a right in the Constitution, and I quoted the Constitution, to appear at at trial. There is no clause in the Constitution granting judges the right to require the defendants to appear at each trial. States have their own laws. Trump is faced with 8 lawsuits. These East Coast radicals think they can decide who should be president instead of the people of this country and are brazenly defying the U.S. Constitution. Such kangaroo court decisions will not hold up, but the idea is to hit Trump during election season with any phony charge they can. It matters not to them that convictions will be tossed after the election, they will have done their dirty work.

 

[AlexB23]

As I stated, defendants have a right in the Constitution, and I quoted the Constitution, to appear at at trial. There is no clause in the Constitution granting judges the right to require the defendants to appear at each trial. States have their own laws. Trump is faced with 8 lawsuits. These East Coast radicals think they can decide who should be president instead of the people of this country and are brazenly defying the U.S. Constitution. Such kangaroo court decisions will not hold up, but the idea is to hit Trump during election season with any phony charge they can. It matters not to them that convictions will be tossed after the election, they will have done their dirty work.

Well, we can not change the date of the election, but courts move slowly in the US, so for a crime committed in say 2021, it might take a few years to gather the evidence to have a fair trial, hence why the trials are happening in 2024. It is a shame why it took so long, but hey, a trial will have to happen, regardless of outcome.

 

[Valletta]

Can you back this up with evidence from a balanced news source such as AP, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian or Reuters? And ideally, not evidence from sensationalist sources such as Fox (Faux) or Breitbart?

Handy chart for media bias, and a pun:

View attachment 345963View attachment 345964

I've worked with an Associated Press bureau chief at the request of he subject on a lengthy article, and the article was anything but balanced. Not one word, not even a hint, of government misconduct. I spoke with the guy after he published the story and asked why. Dead silence. Likewise the Wall Street journal published an outrageously false statement as a reason to end a discussion. That false statement aligned with U.S. government propaganda. Fox too has some bad ones who are not interested in the truth. A lot of "news media" organizations simply have virtually no one with alternate views. Most importantly there are few real investigative reporters left. Don't for one minute trust that the organizations are giving an accurate story based on such a chart.