• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
9,831
3,828
Massachusetts
✟171,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Why is it so important that I accept a ruling?
It isn't important, I'm just trying to figure out where your bias is coming from. If you're assuming Trump can do no wrong, then no ruling will satisfy you, so it doesn't matter what the facts are, you're gonna deny it no matter what, no matter how much evidence there is proving his guilt.

If that's not you, then you'll be willing to accept the ruling, however it comes.

If tt goes through the appeals unsuccessfully it will go to the Supreme Court where it will be overturned.
It's a NY state law, there's no guarantee it will ever get to the SCOTUS. They don't often take up state cases, unless there's a constitutional issue involved. I don't see one, myself, but if Trump's legal team manages to find one, we'll see.

It will be a while before it gets anywhere near that point, though.

And I’m not a MAGA folk, call it a flame
But I didn't call you a MAGA person, so no flame.

-- A2SG, try not to insult people that way...unless they self identify, then they're on their own....
 
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,059
7,504
61
Montgomery
✟255,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think the Supreme Court will take it up due to the fact that it is interfering with an election. I’m not biased because this is happening to Trump, I wouldn’t want to see anyone done this way. I think some people are biased against Trump and that’s why they don’t see the problems with this case
 
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
9,831
3,828
Massachusetts
✟171,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
So far as I've seen, everyone who sees problems with this case comes from some pro-Trump bias. Even Dershowitz, who comes from the perspective of a defense attorney who views every case from that side of the courtroom. I wouldn't be surprised if he's just angling for a job.

Certainly, none of the objections I've heard mentioned hold much weight. Some claim the charges were vague or made up, but they weren't. Some claim the judge or jury were biased, but no evidence of bias has been demonstrated. Besides which, Trump had a legal team with every right to object to any evidence or witness put forth by the prosecution, as well as the right to cross examine any of them, and put up any witnesses of their own. Plus, they had a hand in selecting the jury, with the right to question and object to any juror.

Trump's rights were protected at every stage, and I've seen no evidence they weren't.

-- A2SG, but I'm more than willing to listen to any actual, specific and factual evidence of legal or procedural irregularities......
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,287
15,963
72
Bondi
✟376,597.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I think the Supreme Court will take it up due to the fact that it is interfering with an election.
On that basis, any charge against Trump could be classed as interfering with an election. Which is patently nonsensical. 'Hey, I'm standing for office' is really not much of a defence. And the fact that he is likely to be nominated as the Republican nominee is not, and I'll repeat most definitely not, a cause for a mistrial. The appeal has to be based on matters relating to the conduct of the trial itself.

As has been very well explained by @A2SG the jury were given three routes to the actual charge. Only one needed to be accepted beyond reasonable doubt to lead to the charge itself. The fact that there were three doesn't reduce the need for certainty by a third. It literally doesn't matter that any of the jurors could have been convinced by any or all of those three. The prosecutors would have been exceptionally careful in ensuring that the routes they gave to the guilty verdict were valid. And there is absolutely no doubt that the judge would have weighed his instructions to the jury very carefully indeed.

This wasn't some slapdash, run of the mill suck-it-and-see shot in the dark by some junior legal eagle from the prosecutor's office overseen by some judge who wasn't really paying attention. This was a case against a former president. The care that went into ensuring the processes were absolutely watertight would have been greater than probably any case that either the prosecutors or the judge had been involved with.

It really is wishful thinking to hope that there'd been some mistakes made that will give cause for a genuine appeal. But hey, nothing is set in stone. It could happen. But try getting any Trump supporter to give a verdict on the judicial system as regards the appeal before it's actually decided. The system is only broken if it's rejected. It's only fine and dandy if he gets off.

I doubt you'll find anyone who thinks that Trump doesn't deserve to be considered for president who doesn't say that the result of the appeal will be accepted. But you'll have a hard time finding any MAGA supporters who will say the same. Doesn't that give you pause for thought?
 
Reactions: Paulos23
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,059
7,504
61
Montgomery
✟255,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
LOL
I haven’t heard anyone who isn’t biased against Trump say this was a fair trial. The jury followed the instructions given by the judge which ensured a conviction.
This was a railroad job and if it was anyone else but Trump you would see it
 
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
9,831
3,828
Massachusetts
✟171,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
LOL

I haven’t heard anyone who isn’t biased against Trump say this was a fair trial.
And I've yet to see anyone claiming this was not a fair trial give concrete evidence of any legal or procedural irregularities that hold up to any degree of scrutiny.

The jury followed the instructions given by the judge which ensured a conviction.
What was wrong with those instructions? Judges always give jury instructions, it's not unique to this case.

This was a railroad job and if it was anyone else but Trump you would see it
Care to provide any specific errors of procedure or law that indicate this?

-- A2SG, if so, it'll be a nice change....
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,287
15,963
72
Bondi
✟376,597.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The jury followed the instructions given by the judge which ensured a conviction.
I've read every word of the judge's instructions. If you have as well, then you'll be able to quote the specific statements that he made that you think are out of order. It's 55 pages long so you've plenty to look through.

If you have nothing then your statement above can be ignored.
 
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,059
7,504
61
Montgomery
✟255,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If Harvey Weinstein can prevail on appeal in NY there’s hope for Trump.
 
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,059
7,504
61
Montgomery
✟255,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
For one not allowing an FEC official to testify that this was not a campaign finance violation after the prosecution alleged that it was.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I haven’t heard anyone who isn’t biased against Trump say this was a fair trial.

And how do you know they're biased against Trump? Because they say it was a fair trial?
The jury followed the instructions given by the judge which ensured a conviction.
Funny how having evidence and the law on one particular side of the case works out.
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
9,831
3,828
Massachusetts
✟171,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
For one not allowing an FEC official to testify that this was not a campaign finance violation after the prosecution alleged that it was.
That's not correct. Bradley A. Smith was allowed to testify, but the defense chose not to call him when the judge ruled that he could only speak about election laws in general, and define terms, but he couldn't comment on whether or not Trump violated the law. Since his doing that would allow the prosecution to bring in another expert to rebut that testimony, that may be why the defense chose not to call him.

But he wasn't disallowed from testifying. The decision not to call him was made by Trump's legal team.

-- A2SG, not sure how that's a procedural irregularity, frankly...unless Trump wants to claim incompetent counsel....
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,287
15,963
72
Bondi
✟376,597.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If Harvey Weinstein can prevail on appeal in NY there’s hope for Trump.
An appeal considers process. There's no real need to compare Trump with any other case at all. There was something wrong with the process or not. Period. And I'll continue to wait while you read the judge's instructions so you can quote him where you think there was a problem. Which will relate the appeal.

Whenever you are ready...
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,287
15,963
72
Bondi
✟376,597.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
For one not allowing an FEC official to testify that this was not a campaign finance violation after the prosecution alleged that it was.
The prosecution didn't call him. Trump said he wasn't allowed, which was not true.

From here: NOT REAL NEWS: A look at what didn't happen this week

'Merchan did not bar Smith from testifying. Trump’s legal team chose to not call on him after the judge on Monday declined to broaden the scope of questioning the defense could pursue. The ruling echoed his pretrial ruling on the matter. 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.'

And here: https://www.politico.com/live-updat...nal-trial/judge-limits-trumps-expert-00158857

'Trump's defense team wants to call election law expert Brad Smith to testify about federal campaign finance law. But the judge ruled this morning that allowing Smith to testify expansively on that topic would supplant the judge's role to determine what the law is.'

You can't have a witness testify that the law under which he was charged, is not as has been decided pre-trial. The defence needed to argue about the charge at pre-trial. You can't argue it half way through.
 
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,059
7,504
61
Montgomery
✟255,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Trump lawyer Emil Bove complained to Merchan that prosecutors have focused their case for felony convictions in a way that makes federal campaign law more pivotal than it appeared before the trial. “We’re still in a very strange situation because of the way the government has structured these business-record charges,” Bove said.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
22,667
14,001
Earth
✟245,727.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
But the case is still in the New York State courts, how does SCOTUS become involved?
 
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,059
7,504
61
Montgomery
✟255,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But the case is still in the New York State courts, how does SCOTUS become involved?
I understand there can be an emergency appeal but the SCOTUS is not likely to take it. I think they could get involved because of the ramifications of the election. If the judge sentences Trump to something that prevents him from campaigning maybe.
But if Harvey Weinstein can prevail in an appeal in NY there is still hope for Trump.
I just hope he doesn’t get all this support, win the election then spend all his time trying to get revenge and waging his own lawfare against Democrats.
I don’t like seeing it done to him and I don’t want it done to Democrats either.
 
Upvote 0

Zaha Torte

Jesus Christ is the Eternal God
May 6, 2024
1,895
827
40
Not Hispanic or Latino
✟42,628.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Latter-Day Saint
Marital Status
Married
Like I said - people kept referring to the charges and the convictions - like the first three links you shared - but they have yet to explain exactly what Trump supposedly did.

I believe the last link you shared is exactly what I was looking for - if it contains the charges and evidence and instructions to the jury - so I will peruse that and hopefully figure out what went down.

Thank you.
You are free to go through the other discussions I had with other people on this thread and see that I asked for information that was not being given.

And then people tried to claim that I was somehow at fault for not knowing what I didn't know and for even asking for what I was asking for.
I absolutely do. And you do too. It's been explained over and over. You're being obtuse. Intentionally, I think.
I again encourage you to look over the thread and the comments given to me. Many claims were made - but no explanations.
And for like the 5th time now, I'll ask again... How did Convicted Felon Trump's crack defense team miss all these obvious flaws in the prosecution's case from the beginning?
What flaws are you referring to?
 
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
4,497
2,056
64
St. Louis
✟445,744.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why is it so important that I accept a ruling? If tt goes through the appeals unsuccessfully it will go to the Supreme Court where it will be overturned.
And I’m not a MAGA folk, I call that a flame
Doubt that will happen. So, if it doesn’t get overturned then what?
 
Upvote 0

Zaha Torte

Jesus Christ is the Eternal God
May 6, 2024
1,895
827
40
Not Hispanic or Latino
✟42,628.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Latter-Day Saint
Marital Status
Married
From what I have seen and heard I don't understand how Trump could be convicted of anything - which is what led to my confusion and asking others.
It really has me beat that you are convinced that whatever it was he's been charged with will get to the Supreme Court and will be overturned. Even though you have no real idea of what it is.
Explain what happened then.
You've been told umpteen times and have made zero attempt to verify anything.
I have been told the charges and convictions many times - yes - and I thought people here could answer my questions.
As has been said, you are being intentionally obtuse. Try typing 'Trump trial' into Google.
I have looked at it and it is more of the same.

Do you know of a source that provides a timeline or concise explanation?
 
Upvote 0