This was a fair trial, except …
- There Was No Crime.
- Paying someone not to talk is not a crime.
Mischaracterization of a crime is not a crime. But it's also not a reasonable argument.
- Statute Of Limitations Expired.
- Even if there was a crime.
What was the excuse the court gave for now following said S.O.L., I'm curious if you even know it.
- Prosecutorial Abuse of Power/Overcharging.
- The allegation of business misrepresentations is, at most, a mistake. It should be handled in a civil case, if not merely a misdemeanor.
- The rationalization of multiple counts (34) is based on campaign financing reporting, not repeated incidents of a crime.
This understanding is based off of what exactly? And how is it that these arguments were not convincing enough in an actual court of law, as appealing as they may sound in an internet chat forum?
- Prosecutorial Abuse of Power/Undercharging.
- Campaign finance reporting was made, in part, due to Prosecutors Witness, (Cohen) who testified he stole $50,000.00 from Defendant.
- Not only, was he not charged, this makes Defendant the victim in the proceeding.
Maybe Trump should press charges against Cohen for stealing that money now. I'm guess he'd be within his rights, non?
That said, it would have no bearing on Trump's guilt.
- Judge Refused Change Of Venue.
- Defendant is political opponent and the district the prosecutor filed charges had the highest % of votes against him in the 2020 election.
- It is not reasonable to expect a fair trial with a jury of his peers.
Defendant is not a "political opponent" to anyone in the court. He's a private citizen. Neither the judge nor the jury is running against Trump.
It's becoming VERY clear that right leaning folks would LOVE an autocrat that they agree with (moreso than a fairly elected leader).
But that does NOT mean that the left wants that OR behaves that way.
- Judge Refused To Recuse Himself.
- Judge and daughter of judge were donors to the Defendant’s political opponent.
pft. So?
Look what's happening on the Supreme Court. You think THAT is enough?
- Violation of 1st Amendment. Gag Order
- Defendant was repeatedly punished for publicly pointing out the political motivations of the officers of the court.
- His 1st Amendment rights were deprived when he needed them most – when he was at risk of losing life, liberty and property at the hands of a tyrannical State.
Yes. The judge gets to decide how people conduct themselves in his/her court. It's like being a guest in a house. NOBODY in courts has "free speech" rights. Stop being juvenile.
This idea that Trump "doesn't have to control himself based on circumstances"? Why? You don't allow a petulent child to behave that way, why allow an adult?
- Violation of 6th Amendment:
- Charge was not specified. It is impossible to defend against an unspecified charge.
If the charge was not specified, it would be hard to be proven too. Maybe the charge WAS specified and there is confusion.
- Violation of 8th Amendment:
- Excessive punishment. 4 years in jail per count is a life sentence for a non-crime, a misdemeanor, at most. Such punishment is not merely cruel and unusual, it’s unheard of and unprecedented.
- Defense Not Allowed To Bring Witnesses.
- FEC Commissioner would have explained what a campaign contribution is and what it is not. This expert witness would destroy one of the elements of the complaint.
- Another witness would have not corroborated lying witnesses’ testimony.
Could you please provide the direction instruction from the judge where he indicated that witnesses weren't permitted? Because that would be kind of aggregious if it were true.
But I can guarantee it isn't true, because Trump's a liar.
- Judge Failed To Dismiss Case With Grounds.
- Prosecutions witness lied, leaving Defendant with no credible witnesses against him.
Which one? How?
- Improper Jury Instructions
- Normally, jury instructions are about 5 pages and written copies given to the jury.
- In this case, the jury instructions were 54 pages and only provided to the jury verbally.
Great.
- Judge specifically told jury that certain pieces of evidence could be considered sufficient to convict.
Which specific instruction and for which piece of Evidence and how were his instructions aggregious?
- The instructions included not having to agree that a crime was committed, which is another 6th Amendment violation.
This has already been explained by a layperson on THIS website. And if a layperson on THIS website can explain it, then certainty it's dismissable in a court.
- I really haven’t been paying attention. If I had and I were a professional attorney, I might be able to compile more arguments why this will be vacated upon appeal. Those involved should be disbarred and convicted themselves.
Oh? You're not a professional lawyer eh?