Trump seeks dismissal of hush money case, citing Hunter Biden's pardon.

[durangodawood]

Not true. Biden said he pardoned Hunter because his conviction occurred because the justice system had been politically weaponized (past tense) against him.

Hmm. OK, youre probably right about that.

It seems that for the Trump dismissal youd need to show evidence for the the actual and particular weaponization. It doesnt depend on what did or didnt happen to Hunter.

Biden otoh needs to demonstrate nothing re his claim, per the pardon power as currently understood. It stands as nothing stronger than opinion.

 

[durangodawood]

1. Biden's statement says nothing about the past.

Yes, Im totally wrong about this.

 

[ozso]

0.0% possibility.

Why do you think there's 0.0% possibility that the supreme court would dismiss Trump's conviction?

1. Biden's statement says nothing about the past.

Not True. Hunter's conviction took place in the past on Sep 5, 2024.

2. Biden's statement is sheer opinion.

Glossing.

I mean, I kinda do think that in NY anyway, Trump did come under selective scrutiny resulting in a sketchy case (for which he was 100% guilty, in my sheer opinion, but was not afforded the proper legal rights up front.) But even so, Biden is saying neither that he agrees with me nor that the Hunter pardon relies on past weaponization for a rationale.

Biden essentially made the same claim Trump made regarding the justice system being politically weaponized. But let's pretend that a declaration made by a President is equivalent to the average citizen spouting an opinion, even though it's literally an historic situation.

 

[durangodawood]

Why do you think there's 0.0% possibility that the supreme court would dismiss Trump's conviction?

I didnt say that. I gave 0.0% change in response to your query whether:

"the SCOTUS could use Biden's accusation in part as grounds for dismissing Trump's conviction?"

Tho Im not exactly sure how to approach "could". Roberts could kill the others and rule alone. Really Im giving odds on what they will do, not what they could do.

 

[ozso]

Hmm. OK, youre probably right about that.

It seems that for the Trump dismissal youd need to show evidence for the the actual and particular weaponization. It doesnt depend on what did or didnt happen to Hunter.

Biden otoh needs to demonstrate nothing re his claim, per the pardon power as currently understood. It stands as nothing stronger than opinion.

All the supreme court has to do is rule that there's reasonable doubt that Trump got a fair trial.

 

[ozso]

I didnt say that. I gave 0.0% change in response to your query whether:

"the SCOTUS could use Biden's accusation in part as grounds for dismissing Trump's conviction?"

Why? The court in part establishes decisions based on testimony and statements. But I get that you disagree that statements made by a sitting president carry any weight.

 

[durangodawood]

All the supreme court has to do is rule that there's reasonable doubt that Trump got a fair trial.

Youd need evidence for that. I think the court is not nor should be inclined to overturn criminal convictions based just on someone's stated opinion.

 

[durangodawood]

Why? The court in part establishes decisions based on testimony and statements. But I get that you disagree that statements made by a sitting president carry any weight.

Statements/testimony would have to be like under oath recollections of actual conversations dealing with the inclination to single out Trump.

Weak opinion like Bidens doesnt count for anything except as a rationale for public opinion shaping. It doesnt have to, as the pardon power demands no explanation, constitutionally. They can just do it.

 

[ozso]

Youd need evidence for that. I think the court is not nor should be inclined to overturn criminal convictions based just on someone's stated opinion.

But the opinions of high ranking experts and officials carry weight in a judge's decision making. And it's not a matter of the court overturning the conviction, it's a matter of dismissing the ruling based on reasonable doubt of a fair trial.

 

[durangodawood]

But the opinions of high ranking experts and officials carry weight in a judge's decision making. And it's not a matter of the court overturning the conviction, it's a matter of dismissing the ruling based on reasonable doubt of a fair trial.

See post #28

 

[ozso]

Statements/testimony would have to be like under oath recollections of actual conversations dealing with the inclination to single out Trump.

Weak opinion like Bidens doesnt count for anything except as a rationale for public opinion shaping. It doesnt have to, as the pardon power demands no explanation, constitutionally. They can just do it.

So you're still going with declarations made by the highest office in the land are weak and carry no weight or influence.

 

[durangodawood]

So you're still going with declarations made by the highest office in the land are weak and carry no weight or influence.

Yes. They arent evidence. They dont refer to any specific evidence. People in high office are well known for making statements that are essentially just political.

Sounds like you are inclined to believe Biden that justice was weaponized against Hunter - just because it comes from the highest office.

 

[stevevw]

It certainly seems back up the SCOTUS ruling regarding presidential immunity. Which also cover's Joe Biden if the the Republicans wanted to charge him with a crime once he's left office. People seem to ignore the fact that the ruling also protects Biden after he leaves office.

I thought the presidential immunity was about illegal actions related to the carrying out of the presidency. The Dems said that Trump was not immune because it was not in the performance of his duties as president but related to private affairs.

Bidens potential illegal activity would be associated with his private dealings with benefiting financially through his son using his position. Any wrong doing would not be about performing his presidential duties but a private matter.

If Trump is pardoned it would be just that a pardon like Hunters private matters were pardoned. Joe Biden said he pardoned Hunter because he was unfairly subjected to prosecutions that any citizen would not be subjected to due to his political connections.

That is exactly the same for Trump. He was relentlessly persued through lawfare because he was Trump. The Leftist justice departments moved hell and high water to get Trump thus treating him unlike any normal citizen.

Biden has set the precedent.

 

[ozso]

Yes. They arent evidence. They dont refer to any specific evidence. People in high office are well known for making statements that are essentially just political.

It's circumstantial evidence that lends credence to Trump's claim.

Sounds like you are inclined to believe Biden that justice was weaponized against Hunter - just because it comes from the highest office.

It's possible that what was done to Trump was done to Hunter. Turnabout is fair play. Many have been saying that the methods used by the Democrats to try keeping Trump out of office or getting him out of office, could set the stage for Republicans doing the same in return.

 

[durangodawood]

It's circumstantial evidence that lends credence to Trump's claim.

It's possible that what was done to Trump was done to Hunter. Turnabout is fair play. Many have been saying that the methods used by the Democrats to try keeping Trump out of office or getting him out of office, could set the stage for Republicans doing the same in return.

Theres legal standards for demonstrating selective or malicious prosecution. These wont be re written for this special case. And alleged DoJ shenanigans dont implicate NY state.

Im not even sure the Trump group will bring a selective prosecution case. They will probably argue 6th amdmt instead, which is a lot cleaner than having to dig up actual evidence on the NY prosecutors motivations.

 

[ozso]

Statements/testimony would have to be like under oath recollections of actual conversations dealing with the inclination to single out Trump.

Weak opinion like Bidens doesnt count for anything except as a rationale for public opinion shaping. It doesnt have to, as the pardon power demands no explanation, constitutionally. They can just do it.

I'm going by what's in the article I posted and others. Biden basically sabotaged Trump remaining a convicted felon. And the last shred of Democrat victory is going bye-bye. Everything else in the legal system pitted against Trump has already fizzled out. Teflon Don abides.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Yeah, because up until now Trump was consistently and loudly telling everyone that the justice system was perfectly fine. It was only the Biden pardon that made him change his mind.

Come on, be serious. Trump's story for nearly a decade is that any legal troubles he finds himself in is clearly someone else's fault. This is just more of the same, a guy who can't take responsibility for his mistakes. Don't fall for it, again.

Remind me again what crime Trump was trying to conceal with the hush money?

 

[RileyG]

Not true. The Biden claim is that there are plans to politically weaponize the justice system. True or false, he makes no claim that the justice system has already been weaponized.

I dont understand this incapacity to distinguish past from future.

….ok?

 

[eleos1954]

The Brief

• Trump’s lawyers seek to dismiss his conviction, citing his election win and Hunter Biden’s pardon.
• Judge Merchan delayed sentencing, considering postponement until after Trump’s term.
• Prosecutors defend the conviction and will respond by Dec. 9.

https://www.livenowfox.com/news/trump-hush-money-case-dismissal.

Joe Biden's declaration that his son Hunter's conviction was the result of political tactics, gives credence to the claim that such is occurring within the judicial system. I think Biden may have given Trump an early Christmas present.

The Brief

• Trump’s lawyers seek to dismiss his conviction, citing his election win and Hunter Biden’s pardon.
• Judge Merchan delayed sentencing, considering postponement until after Trump’s term.
• Prosecutors defend the conviction and will respond by Dec. 9.

https://www.livenowfox.com/news/trump-hush-money-case-dismissal.

Joe Biden's declaration that his son Hunter's conviction was the result of political tactics, gives credence to the claim that such is occurring within the judicial system. I think Biden may have given Trump an early Christmas present.

There have been many convicted and sent to prison for the very same crimes Hunter Biden committed ... so his claim it was political falls flat. "nobody is above the law" .... not true as we see with pardons ... this includes pardons that don't involve a person that is active in the political realm.

So, what is the real political part? Being the son of the president and him getting a pardon when there are many serving time for the very same crimes that Hunter Biden committed ... I would say this is the political part IMO

 

[durangodawood]

Remind me again what crime Trump was trying to conceal with the hush money?

None. That was was never part of the indictment.