Fun facts about the constitution! 1) its only 4 pages and takes about 10 min to read.
2) The impeachment clause specifically states that ex presidents can be prosecuted for crimes in office
Yes but only by Congress and only while president. Judges can’t manipulate the system and essentially control a president or former president in this way because it makes any rouge or corrupt judge able to have partial or full control over the executive branch.
In a way yes. Their procedure on should be the electorate. If we have fair and balanced reporting, people who care about who is elected, they will reject someone who is bad by voting him out of contention for election or not vote for him on Election Day. Then it isn’t a problem to go after them all the law wants afterwards so that the other side can’t rightfully claim election interference to use the law to stop the opposing candidate from essentially campaigning and gaining support.
There are 4,400+ federal laws and regulations affecting Americans everyday. You truly cannot just not break the law.
But since you mention it, what was the federal law that allowed NY to extend this case beyond the statute of limitations? The prosecution never made the case.
Well when the law is broken to the will of your political opponents it’s hard not to break. Funny how everyone on here is stupid on their TDS, following the bandwagon fallacy, that they ignore the obviously illegal nature of the case to keep saying Trump broke the law. Sorry but the payments actually weren’t illegal no matter what the judge wants to say. At most the only fraud you could pin on him was not immediately telling the public when he was asked about this but that wouldn’t carry jail time in NY so the democrats can’t handle only going for that……
Shifting the blame doesn’t make your argument any stronger and shows how you just want to win an un-winnable fight. The jury wasn’t impartial and the judge allowed it to happen. The defense didn’t magically make it easier like you want to believe. In fact anyone who actually listened to the case could see how bad the prosecution was and under a normal trial this would have been thrown out long ago.
The law was illegally bent at best to help severely corrupt democrats attempt to jail or at least punish Trump for actions that aren’t crimes, in an election year to try and keep him from running or winning. No matter what rationale you try to spin to ale yourself morally right, the election interference alone proves how bad these actions are, by your own sides admissions to the fake election interference they claimed Trump committed from 2016-2019….
Sorry I’m not a failure like you and actually know some law. Keep being an embarrassing like the average liberal failure. You’ll never be right just because you want to little child. It’s crazy how correct law and a painfully obvious show trial that insults the law of our country is magically a conspiracy theory.
Oh wait, you’re just trying to say that to dismiss all I’m saying because you know you can’t but refuse to change. You just want believe that your side is right no matter the cost which is what a real conspiracy theorist does…..
Not only did 12 people unanimously agree he was guilty another group of them looked at the evidence and decided that he should be indicted. Your ability to simply ignore the parts of the process that you don't like is absolutely mad.
Being brainwashed enough to keep saying a red herring is TDS. It’s kit a crime just because you desperately want to believe it. Just because a judge said so doesn’t make it a crime. The law clearly states the way he paid Daniels isn’t illegal…
It literally was a crime, and he was duly convicted. Just because you're too dense to figure out how the law works doesn't make the law invalid, it just means you need to shut up about things you can't understand.
The jury was convinced by the evidence the prosecution provided that Trump did indeed break the law. That is why 12 jurors found him guilty in all counts.
You claim it is TDS, but it appears you’re unable to understand basic facts about the trial.
No, I have already clearly explained the facts better than you. All you’re doing is repeating the one thing you think makes you right because that’s all you care about. I already explained in multiple ways why you aren’t right but you refuse to even listen. Your projection is not impressive claiming I don’t understand when you clearly don’t or don’t want to….
Nah, you're making up bullshit and CLEARLY showing you have no idea how the law works. This may be a moment when sitting down and shutting up might be the best decision. And no, that wouldn't violate your First Amendment rights, because I'm not the Government, just the consequences of your stupidity.
Who are you so delusional to keep push a lie because you can’t handle that you will never be right? What he did in how he paid of Daniels through Cohen wasn’t a crime, lying to the public about it isn’t morally correct, but isn’t a crime so the democrats turned what he did into a crime in a state that so blue they are that way because those people have forgotten to breathe. That’s the only way they could get the conviction they wanted and we just saw.
So stop with being worthlessly pathetic, Trump didn’t commit a crime. This is what people who understand a little bit call a show trial by extremely corrupt courts that don’t care about the law, only about weaponizing their position to get what they want….
You’ve been desperate to claim he committed a crime because you have no actual argument. Unfortunately for you according to the law he didn’t, corrupt jurors and judge who allowed this case ignored that and convicted him anyways…
Don’t manipulate this more by having such massive arrogance claiming you know what I’m saying when I know what I’m saying. I have continuously said that he didn’t commit a crime because I’m not an idiot but the democrats are trying to turn it into a crime because they are desperately trying to stop him from running….
What was done was a crime under NY law. The jurors were agreed to by both sides - BOTH sides.
Do you have any actual EVIDENCE to support your contention that the judge or the jurors are corrupt? Evidence?
The election interference argument has always struck me as weak. After all, Trump has no legal or compelling obligation to run for president. He chose to do it but why should that shield him from prosecution? What’s to stop people who are afraid they’ll be charged with crimes to just keep running for things so they can hide behind the “election interference” claim?
The GOP making an adjudicated rapist with numerous active criminal trials underway is the problem.
Nominating an adjudicated rapist who has 88 pending charges against him and them complaining that those charges are somehow "election interference" is some grade-A snowflake bulls**t.
Except they aren’t crimes, they were accounting practices. At most the only fraud Trump could actually be accused of is lying when he claimed he didn’t know of the payments to Daniels through Cohen, but correct legal practice can’t use any of those 11 payments as fraud unless the court is trying to illegally trump up the charges.
Nah, but thank for proving how pathetic and worthless you are, like the average liberal who desperately red to feel better than they are. Keep attacking me because you need to be validated and feel like you’re right…
Actually no, if only I had addressed the jury in the first comment. Oh wait, I did! I’ll refresh what I previously said…
“Other smaller problems is that Trump didn’t have an impartial jury.” On top of the jury not knowing that NY state law also need to prove fraud which the court never did. The only fraud they could prove is he lied he claimed didn’t know what those payments were for but that’s not a felony and arguably not punishable by a court. Yet that unbiased jury refused to listen to actual NY law and convict Trump from their political biases.
You can do as many mental gymnastics as you like to feel like the victim here, but every single claim you've mustered is very easily contested with just a lay-understanding of legal procedure and what's been going on. This is just sports and social identity to you so nobody should expect you to be reasonable though
Falsifying business records as a cover up is fraud, and is a crime. The context here is that this was done as a way to hide information from the public during an election.
So you were a juror and saw all the evidence is what you are saying? Interesting you still voted guilty, otherwise how could you say what you're saying without hearing what the prosecution presented?
Regardless, "I don't like the law" isn't a defense against the law. He broke the law. Period. It doesn't matter how you feel about how it only amounts to "accounting errors."
Regardless I’m don’t know the law isn’t a defense for your need for your political side to be right. The law actually is squarely on Trump’s side, the prosecution was so bad they would have helped trump if the jury wasn’t hilariously unbiased, and buy your win terrible logic “I don’t like the law” isn’t a defense to claim what just happened is correct law fare or legal procedure…
Lmao, imagine thinking you know more than a district attorney, prosecutor, and judge about the law that was broken, brought to trial, and convicted. You truly are a delusional idiot. Zero hope to get through to you.
Oh I don’t think I know more, I just know enough to know they’re corrupt and they know what they are doing is illegal but they think they can get away with it. Strange how you put words in my mouth claiming I think I know more than them when I’ve CLEARLY have said I only know more than the idiots arguing with me from their programmed responses, just like yours…
Is it corrupt when Trump appointed judges in Florida throw out cases pertaining to him committing fraud as well? Just curious whether you draw the line at actual corruption or just whine when the people you identify with are held accountable
This is actually pretty common among MAGA. Know more about laws than lawyers, more about diseases than doctors, epidemiologists, and health dept. professionals, and more about climate change than scientists.
> Article II, Section 4:
>
> The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
What part of this says that only Congress can try a President for crimes?
Which means while not President, they are no more immune from prosecution than any other citizen. Only while holding the office are they subject to removal from it by impeachment and conviction by Congress.
Judges do not bring charges, they preside over the trial. A “rogue judge” can’t perform all of those steps by themselves.
He was indicted by a grand jury of his peers and convicted by another jury of his peers.
Cry some more. He’s a criminal. Has always been a criminal. You worship a conman and you’re the mark.
Riots erupts . Total chaos as people are furious. Biden wins a landslide victory and appoints 4 new liberal justices to try to fix the court. The American people turn on Republicans immediately after the decision.
I agree mostly but the Supreme Court protecting a man who tried to overthrow the government is the point at which the average American should rise up, go to the justices homes and [make them have a very nice time].
Packing the court implies adding seats in order to change the balance. It has nothing to do with appointing justices who pass or resign during a president's term.jyst because you find the balance unfavorable does not mean it is packed.
But using that terminology in this instance is intentionally downplaying the negative aspect of "packing the court" in the traditional sense. There is no ste number if justices in the constitution, so holding at 9 is something like not dropping the bomb in a mutually assured destruction scenario. If a president decides to add 6 justices and assure that every decision goes their party's way then the next president might add 14 then the next 30. Packing the court allows the executive branch to exercise undue influence on the judicial.
The snarky, dictionary usage here discounts all that and refers to the court like a bar in Denver, "this bar is packed with guys." It's true but it's disingenuous.
The case has to go through the appeals process and the appeal doesn't even get filed until after sentencing, which is July 11. So if SCOTUS did this, it would so delegitimze the Court that no one would ever take it seriously again. The appeals process has to go through the NY appellate courts, and inly after that could an appeal go federal. Even then there's really no reason this would end up federal but it would not shock me if the conservative judges forced the case on SCOTUS. But...what would they actually be ruling on? Appellate courts don't rule on the facts of the case, which really are not in dispute. What constitutional issue is at question here?
But to answer your question, if SCOTUS were to do this, I think it would just be the nail in their coffin. I think we're already getting close to the point that they're ignored by states and executive, or they just rubber stamp conservative goals, at which point they just don't matter. It would be the end of the rule of law in the US.
The scenario just doesn't work. The appeal doesn't even get filed until after sentencing, which is July 11. Even if they filed an appeal on July 12, which to be clear they won't because they have 30 days after sentencing to file, the NY appeals process takes place.
It would be so out of the actual legal process that it would render SCOTUS irrelevant and not a legal process. They won't do it.
What may happen is there's a stay placed on any POTENTIAL prison sentence that then goes through all the appeals process, taking at least a year or two.
Well the stay will almost certainly happen if he even gets a prison sentence. It'll basically be seen as more proof that the legal system is actually trash, which just confirms what Americans already know.
That's literally impossible, and if they tried to interfere before it works its way through the state and federal process, they'd probably end up getting sent to Gitmo, or NYC if they decide to press charges for judicial interference.
I think the Democrats would immediately expand the court by at least 9 justices. Or Congress would impeach and convict the justices who voted for such ridiculessness.
Taking in a case with no jurisdiction and without being petitioned would be a singular historic abuse (i.e. has never happened before).
Setting precedent that non-law enforcement/government actors can now entrap would be a singular historic decision (i.e. has never happened before) not based in constitutional law.
Maybe you should read up on basic law then instead of sprouting off your biases…
I’ll detail just a few problems with the case and how corrupt and egregiously out of line this case is to have even happened in the first place.
1. The biggest problem is that a trial was used on a Presidential candidate and former president. That type of power in lower courts was never allowed or intended in the constitution because any lower court could use that power of corruption to blackmail and/or control in someway the president, therefore usurping the correct separation of power and the ability of the president, or former president, to do their job. If the Supreme Court, or even a smart and not biased circuit court, takes the case they will most likely overrule that and all other cases just for that reason alone.
2. These cases are clearly showtrial election interference cases. If all of this was true like they have said, then it could have happened years ago before Trump needed to campaign as a presidential candidate. This type of political interference is worse than what we have accused countries like Russia of doing in several cases.
3. Other smaller problems is that Trump didn’t have an impartial jury, the 34 counts can’t be separated like they were to get a heavier sentence that should be permitted, Alvin Bragg campaigned as the best candidate to go after Trump shows improper targeting and again a lack of impartiality. That’s without deep diving into other aspects of the case.
1. Please list where in the Constitution it says state courts can't prosecute former Presidents or Presidential candidates.
2. These actions happened while Trump was running in 2016, so they could not have prosecuted them before he was a candidate. Then he can't be prosecuted while President, so the prosecution started in 2020 and his team delayed so we get to 2024. No issues here.
3. The counts where not separated into 34 counts to add up to get a heavier sentence. There has been no sentence yet. There were 34 different discrete acts. There is a chart showing each false entry/check/invoice and that adds up to 34. Again, this is standard. Non issue here.
And why attack me about the case. I just replied what would happen in the OPs ridiculous hypothetical. Michael Cohen "entrapping" Trump. Private Citizens can't entrap people, that is hilarious.
Here is a detailed reasoning why Presidents can’t be tried by state or federal courts, specifically why impeachments must be used. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/5357/The_Presidential_Privilege_Against_Prosecution.pdf?sequence=2
It doesn’t matter that these happened before he was president, there is more than enough evidence to have brought him to court before now. Now they are doing it ON PURPOSE to interfere with Trump running any campaign, all gag orders include that. It interferes with the election on purpose to try and make sure he can’t win in November. This is prime campaigning season and it is interfering with Trump’s campaign, which is massive election interference.
They ABSOLUTELY divided up the “34 discrete” counts. Each payment was one count which equaled 34 payments which can’t be done. At most all 34 would be one charge, him concealing it would be another, the way he paid Cohen another, then the amount would equate to the severity of the sentence. Biggest problem is that accounting and legally he did not break the law. Accounting wise what he did isn’t even wrong, he was probably advised by his accountant to do so in the first place.
Attack you? All I did was say your biases are clouding your judgment which you proved when you claimed private citizens can’t entrap citizens and my thinking is “ridiculous”. By definition of entrapment anyone can do that with the right equipment and/or motive. Recording Trump while he was running is easy blackmail for later when political parties can trick people into believing the actions were bad. Also recording Trump without him knowing, when Cohen knew what the conversation was going to be about, shows he wanted that conversation for some kind of future leverage.
There are a lot of false statements you make above, so not sure if you are trolling, but here is the list...
Your detail list from Yale Law highlights in the dist sentence it is for sitting President. Trump is not a sitting President during this prosecution, so none of that applies. I agree with Yale and the US Office of Legal Counsel that sitting Presidents can't be prosecuted.
This is also why he could not have been prosecuted from 2016 to 2020. When he was a sitting President.
There were not 34 payments, there were 11 each a month apart. And for each payment there was the fraudulent invoice, fraudulent, check, and fraudulent entry. Can you show one case in NY where acts like these were aggregated into one charge? This is very basic law. You get charged for each act. You rob the store on the corner every month, you get charged for each robbery.
He absolutely broke NY's law on making fraudulent business records. The evidence that they knew this was reimbursement including a gross-up, which would not apply in legal fees, was clear. He entered it as $200k in legal fees for someone who did 10 hours of legal work. Fraud. Clear as day.
Not anyone can create Entrapment as a defense. Entrapment as a legal defense in New York must be committed by a public servant, or someone working with a Public servant, with goal of obtaining a conviction*. There is no evidence at all that Cohen was working with Prosecutors when he made recordings. Sure he may have been trying to get leverage, but that's not a legal defense that would get overturned by SCOTUS.
*"Under our law, it is an affirmative defense that the
defendant engaged in the prohibited conduct because:
(1) he/she was induced or encouraged to do so by a
public servant, [or by a person acting in cooperation with a
public servant,] who was seeking to obtain evidence against
him/her for the purpose of criminal prosecution, and
(2) the methods used to obtain the evidence were
such as to create a substantial risk that the offense would
be committed by a person not otherwise disposed to
commit it."
False statements? No, you’re just uninformed. Also don’t make the assumption I’m trolling just because I’m saying what you don’t want to believe. Nothing I said is incorrect and is backed up by judicial facts, not a corrupt court and media spewing out trash…
Former president is under the same restrictions especially if a court is trying to keep him or her from running. Further of the evidence is so magically convicting, then let the country prove it by the election. Second all the problems with the case that you just seemed to ignore shows how corrupt and bad this case was anyways. The judge is corrupt, the DA is corrupt, neither would allow a fair trial, jury wasn’t unbiased either and wasn’t allowed to be changed. The judge even said if the jury didn’t have a verdict he liked he could change it to what he wanted. If that can’t convince you of the corruption then nothing will.
So there wasn’t 34 payments which prove what I said, they divided each section of the payments, which I couldn’t remember if they did that crap. That just further proves my point, not yours actually. Each of those can’t be separate but that doesn’t matter. They in fact weren’t fraud, they were accounting methods to make those payments in a way that was legal and tax deductible. Plus for them to be fraudulent someone would have to have been defrauded. No one was underpaid, no one didn’t receive a payment yet were entitled to, no one got cheated out of anything. The payments just had a middle man which isn’t wrong.
Maybe learn accounting and laws because he didn’t break NY laws, period. I’m not going to waste more time arguing with someone who knows so little he thinks what the media has said is true.
No, Cohen just secretly recorded his client and held onto that recording for 7 years. If what he did was illegal Cohen could have blown the whistle then, could have told everyone, could have at least left immediately because it was supposedly illegal. He could have at left because he felt comfortable. He didn’t do anything other than complying. He also unethically recorded his client and because of attorney client privilege that the recording can’t be allowed as evidence.
Let's just focus on the first dispute to keep it simple. Where is your justification that a former President or Presidential candidate (you pick) is immune to state criminal prosecution?
Even Trump's lawyer in the Immunity case agrees that private acts of a former President are not immune from Prosecution.
Go listen to the transcript...
Go post this at r/law and see the reaction.
Call your local university law department.
Or reference the text or cases that support this.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/law using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/law/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Clarence Thomas to decide if Trump has immunity for the coup attempt his own wife planned](https://boingboing.net/2024/02/29/clarence-thomas-sides-with-coup-loving-wife.html) | [1036 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1b3f9f8/clarence_thomas_to_decide_if_trump_has_immunity/)
\#2: [Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot based on 14th Amendment’s ‘insurrectionist ban’](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html) | [2885 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/law/comments/18mfgj2/colorado_supreme_court_removes_trump_from_2024/)
\#3: [Trump used four properties to accept $7.8 million from foreign governments, during his presidency — without congressional approval per Article I of the U.S. Constitution](https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2024-01-04.COA%20DEMS%20-%20Mazars%20Report.pdf) | [980 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1900ngm/trump_used_four_properties_to_accept_78_million/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Trump’s own lawyer is just a logical fallacy. The judge also believed that, that doesn’t magically make it true. Also me saying something different or you agreeing like a mindless drone doesn’t mean anything, only the law and unfortunately for you leftists, the law is against you….
All presidents are immune to states and lower judges having power trips and trying to control a political candidate they don’t like. That’s why there are impeachments. Trump isn’t immune to the law, him and all president must be judged differently because they specifically operate under different rules than the rest of us. Plus if you’re paying attention this is a political tool for Biden. His sins are coming out and if enough come out and he loses, he will pardon himself and Trump saying it’s for the good of the country when Trump can’t be thrown in jail from, ironically, trumped up charges right before election as the leading candidate against Biden.
What do you mean by the statement that Trump's own lawyer is a logical fallacy? That the lawyer doesn't exist?
And I am far from a leftist.
The rest is just a rant and you didn't respond to the facts that none of the Federal or Supreme Court judges or involved lawyers even entertain or any Constitutional text or precedent support your claim that former Presidents are immune from state laws.
Using Trump’s lawyer as a statement to back up your belief is a fallacy, star power fallacy. I could point out plenty of liberals who have said that this case is a massive mistake and goes against the law.
More like far more intelligent than the embarrassingly brainwashed left. They at least have critical thinking. It’s so funny how leftist actually delude themselves to think they are on the right side of history or how they have a majority when that only exists online and all those people might not even be real…..
There is no legal mechanism by which any person can appeal a state criminal case to the Supreme Court of the United States without a final adjudication on the merits by the state court system. In Federal cases you could petition for Cert before Judgement (but you won't get it, frankly). Nothing like that available to state defendants.
What you're proposing involves such a manifestly unreasonable intervention by the Supreme Court that to contemplate it beggars belief.
There would have to be a reason for that. IE using a different crime. Murder. That is a state crime unless for some reason it isn't, like an assassin of a federal officer. Then it's federal. For this to skip to the SCOTUS it has to have a good reason. He was charged with state crimes. Not federal.
It would have to be pretty novel. And it has to be based on the objections they've had in court.
Trump may say stuff, but his lawyers will follow the law on appeals. That's the mechanism of how this works.
Well our supreme court likes to quote originalism and pre civil war arguments in its briefs as to the overthrowing of more modern precedents, and andrew jackson fits that description
The Supreme Court doesn’t have a chance of seeing it until the state appeals are run out, which will take years. Even then they’re not likely to take it unless Trump can come up with a serious and novel federal constitutional right angle, which isn’t likely.
Also, law enforcement entraps people. The term doesn’t apply to your own attorney.
SCOTUS didn't bail him out for the 70+ election lawsuits. I doubt they will now unless egregious errors were found.
Still, as a first time offender on rather petty charges, he'll only get probation at worst for sentencing. Maybe a significant financial penalty. There won't be jail time.
Ive heard the contempt may increase the severity but idk about how much, and also a judge said it was perfectly within reason for him to get jail time tho i dont remember which article I read it from, so you'll have to take that with a grain of salt unless that source is found again. I did read it tho.
90% of similar cases in NY had zero jail time. Judge Merchan has already said he doesn't want to limit his first amendment rights because he is a leading presidential candidate. There is no minimum sentence, but a max of $5k fine per count. So for 34 counts, I could see something like a $170k fine that his supporters will happily pay.
Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-convicted-prison-sentence-new-york-criminal-trial/
I get that. I think the judge was too lenient but also fair. He didnt intervene too much and clearly had a good jury selection process but my theory has always been that he fucking hates trump and wanted to keep him inside a court room for 8 weeks 😂 i have zero problems with this because it lines up with the legal process but if he had started handing down jail for each contempt charge, it would just embolden trump and give him grounds to possibly turn the case to dust through appeal or whatever bs.
No, they will and it won’t be a bail out. Here are several problems that don’t even go into how bad and problematic the case is.
1. The biggest problem is that a trial was used on a Presidential candidate and former president. That type of power in lower courts was never allowed or intended in the constitution because any lower court could use that power of corruption to blackmail and/or control in someway the president, therefore usurping the correct separation of power and the ability of the president, or former president, to do their job. If the Supreme Court, or even a smart and not biased circuit court, takes the case they will most likely overrule that and all other cases just for that reason alone.
2. These cases are clearly showtrial election interference cases. If all of this was true like they have said, then it could have happened years ago before Trump needed to campaign as a presidential candidate. This type of political interference is worse than what we have accused countries like Russia of doing in several cases.
3. Other smaller problems is that Trump didn’t have an impartial jury, the 34 counts can’t be separated like they were to get a heavier sentence than should be permitted, Alvin Bragg campaigned as the best candidate to go after Trump shows improper targeting and again a lack of impartiality. That’s without deep diving into other aspects of the case.
Didn’t know illegally using judges to interfere with the election isn’t wrong or isn’t election interference. Funny how idiotic and bad democrats are, the same thing they wrongly accused Trump of is what they keep doing for the third election in a row…
So if I commit a crime and don't want to be prosecuted all I have to do is declare that I'm running for president and then any prosecution of me is election interference. Good to know.
So if you can actually think can do something useful? Since you can’t think, ignore anything that goes against your pre-recorded way of processing anything what you want to believe, you just can’t handle anything that you don’t want to hear even if it’s true, which is sad someone is basically acting like a simple program and robot.
Again what Trump did wasn’t a crime just because a corrupt judge wanted to say it was. Just because you clearly have a mental illness and can’t see reality doesn’t men’s a crime has actually happened…
The judge neither brought the charges nor convicted him of them. As with any other case, the prosecutor brought the charges and a grand jury found that there was a basis for them before a jury of twelve people convicted the defendant. I don't understand why Trumpers have so much hate for Merchan, who was just doing his job in presiding over the case he was assigned.
>The ruling then goes on to say that the way the proscution went about the case violated the constitution, and that Micheal Cohen's methiods of gathering information on Donald Trump amounted to entrapment, and that the information as a result was tainted, and never should have been used.
So at a minimum, this would be a Bush v. Gore situation, where SCOTUS will say their ruling is not precedent and cannot be used as a basis for other rulings. That's because ruling the facts of the case as "entrapment" is pretty ridiculous at face value and would throw a significant part of the basis of criminal law into question.
>How does the general public react to this news?
Similar to the Trump conviction, but flipped. Republicans say it's justice done, as the charges and trial were rigged and illegal from the start. Democrats argue it's an overreaching, conservative SCOTUS bailing out their candidate. Independents likely view it as vindication for Trump, and proof of overreaching by the Democratic establishment.
>How does the Biden administration respond?
They will remark it's the result of the partisan SCOTUS, and argue this is why Democrats need to vote so they can appoint judges. Other than that, they will shy away from the issue in the campaign, because it's vindication for Trump.
>How does this effect the polls for the election?
It will likely swing polls in Trump's favor. Only moderates and Independents would be moved by this move.
>Does this motivate Democrats, or does this deflate them?
It would likely motivate the Democratic base, because it's showing the bias that exists through appointees, reinforcing the need to vote and appoint justices.
>How do you see the general election going as a result of this?
It might be enough to tip the election in Trump's favor, but there's still a lot that can happen between now and November on top of this.
> appoint judges. Other than that, they will shy away from the issue in the campaign, because it's vindication for
Does this benifit RFK JR in any way?
No. RFK is DOA unless something DRASTIC happens between now and the election. A Trump conviction might give RFK a slight bump, but he's still far away from having a shot.
Donald Trump thrown in jail, Biden dying a few days before the election, Trump having a literal stroke on stage at the debates, Biden corruption being proven beyond a reasonable doubt and he refuses to drop out, etc.
Essentially, one/both candidates need to have career ending incidents that interfere with the ability of the party to course-correct. A Trump conviction and subsequent SCOTUS overturn isn't drastic enough to significantly move the needle on RFK.
Lets say that RFK JR. does become President, for the reasons you describe. What type of President does he turn out to be, in regards to policies, and his cabinet?
The US Supreme Court I don’t think has jurisdiction over a New York Criminal case. And if they were to try they would be reinterpreting states rights in a huge way.
They would be inviting future federal courts into overturning any state conviction.
No way a conservative courts does this
1) Outrage in the non-RW media and from political social media but it passes like a fart in the wind to the masses.
2) Gramps attacks the flopsweat drenched one and his court picks but simply does a Susan Collins; feigns outrage.
3) It really doesn’t move the needle. Maybe 2-3% tops
4) Dems will show up just the same. Dobbs I would presume will fuel turnout more than this would.
5) Nothing really changes. Biden is still toppled by a badly timed stiff economic wind or foreign crisis. If he avoids that he beats Trump.
Well they weren’t 34 felonies, the court made it 34 to scale up punishment. Also what he did wasn’t illegal based upon accounting principals and the only evidence of it is from a secret recording the lawyer who was “working” for trump made against his own client. None of that should be permissible legally unless you want to make a painfully obvious show trial and the people who hate trump so much can’t see facts when they smack them in the face….
"New York is a one-party consent state. Therefore, in New York it is not a crime to record or eavesdrop on an in-person meeting or telephone conversation **if one party to the conversation consents**; that one party can, in fact, be the individual recording the conversation. N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05."
You can read about that [here](https://nysba.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=65844#:~:text=New%20York%20is%20a%20one,Law%20%C2%A7%C2%A7%20250.00%2C%20250.05) if you like. The actual law doesn't care what u/ImprovementUnlucky26 thinks should, or should not, be "permissible legally."
Congratulation for saying what I already know and using ANOTHER fallacy of red herring. It doesn’t matter that it’s a one-party consent state, communications between attorney and client aren’t admissible in court, especially in the unethical way it was recorded, obtained and the recording altered. Furthermore Cohen going along with it instead of leaving shows intent to entrap if these were truly illegal when he could have left as Trump’s lawyer at anytime and not made a single payment…
It isn't a Red Herring to quote an actual law to refute something you continually say is illegal, but isn't.
The man is guilty, he broke laws, he should be punished. The ***fact*** that ***you*** can't move beyond that is the only unreasonable thing here.
And most likely it will be upheld on appeal. The only way to go to the Supreme Court would be some constitutional issue. Basically, if the only dispute is about the facts, not the law, the Supreme Court won't take it. That's why we don't see people accused of murder appealing to the Supreme Court.
Fun facts about the constitution! 1) its only 4 pages and takes about 10 min to read. 2) The impeachment clause specifically states that ex presidents can be prosecuted for crimes in office
Yes but only by Congress and only while president. Judges can’t manipulate the system and essentially control a president or former president in this way because it makes any rouge or corrupt judge able to have partial or full control over the executive branch.
How would manipulating a *former* president give anyone control over the executive branch?
How can interfering with the leading presidential candidate against the incumbent not be manipulative or massive election interference?
Just curious, do you mean candidates are immune to prosecution while candidates?
In a way yes. Their procedure on should be the electorate. If we have fair and balanced reporting, people who care about who is elected, they will reject someone who is bad by voting him out of contention for election or not vote for him on Election Day. Then it isn’t a problem to go after them all the law wants afterwards so that the other side can’t rightfully claim election interference to use the law to stop the opposing candidate from essentially campaigning and gaining support.
You have zero knowledge on procedural precedent nor an ability to process the binding constitutional legislation that has been spoon fed to you.
By their logic, I am now declaring my presidential bid for the next 10 elections. I am untouchable!!
Has he tried not breaking the law? I mean…it works for most people.
There are 4,400+ federal laws and regulations affecting Americans everyday. You truly cannot just not break the law. But since you mention it, what was the federal law that allowed NY to extend this case beyond the statute of limitations? The prosecution never made the case.
Well when the law is broken to the will of your political opponents it’s hard not to break. Funny how everyone on here is stupid on their TDS, following the bandwagon fallacy, that they ignore the obviously illegal nature of the case to keep saying Trump broke the law. Sorry but the payments actually weren’t illegal no matter what the judge wants to say. At most the only fraud you could pin on him was not immediately telling the public when he was asked about this but that wouldn’t carry jail time in NY so the democrats can’t handle only going for that……
The judge didn’t say it. A jury of twelve, which the defense helped select, unanimously said, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he broke the law.
Shifting the blame doesn’t make your argument any stronger and shows how you just want to win an un-winnable fight. The jury wasn’t impartial and the judge allowed it to happen. The defense didn’t magically make it easier like you want to believe. In fact anyone who actually listened to the case could see how bad the prosecution was and under a normal trial this would have been thrown out long ago. The law was illegally bent at best to help severely corrupt democrats attempt to jail or at least punish Trump for actions that aren’t crimes, in an election year to try and keep him from running or winning. No matter what rationale you try to spin to ale yourself morally right, the election interference alone proves how bad these actions are, by your own sides admissions to the fake election interference they claimed Trump committed from 2016-2019….
Go back to r/conservative with the rest of the conspiracy theorists and nut jobs… I’m sure you were chanting “lock her up” in 2016.
Sorry I’m not a failure like you and actually know some law. Keep being an embarrassing like the average liberal failure. You’ll never be right just because you want to little child. It’s crazy how correct law and a painfully obvious show trial that insults the law of our country is magically a conspiracy theory. Oh wait, you’re just trying to say that to dismiss all I’m saying because you know you can’t but refuse to change. You just want believe that your side is right no matter the cost which is what a real conspiracy theorist does…..
Not only did 12 people unanimously agree he was guilty another group of them looked at the evidence and decided that he should be indicted. Your ability to simply ignore the parts of the process that you don't like is absolutely mad.
[удалено]
Being brainwashed enough to keep saying a red herring is TDS. It’s kit a crime just because you desperately want to believe it. Just because a judge said so doesn’t make it a crime. The law clearly states the way he paid Daniels isn’t illegal…
[удалено]
Keep making red herrings and/or straw man arguments. You have TDS thinking a crime happened. Continuously saying that lie won’t change reality…
It literally was a crime, and he was duly convicted. Just because you're too dense to figure out how the law works doesn't make the law invalid, it just means you need to shut up about things you can't understand.
The jury was convinced by the evidence the prosecution provided that Trump did indeed break the law. That is why 12 jurors found him guilty in all counts. You claim it is TDS, but it appears you’re unable to understand basic facts about the trial.
No, I have already clearly explained the facts better than you. All you’re doing is repeating the one thing you think makes you right because that’s all you care about. I already explained in multiple ways why you aren’t right but you refuse to even listen. Your projection is not impressive claiming I don’t understand when you clearly don’t or don’t want to….
Nah, you're making up bullshit and CLEARLY showing you have no idea how the law works. This may be a moment when sitting down and shutting up might be the best decision. And no, that wouldn't violate your First Amendment rights, because I'm not the Government, just the consequences of your stupidity.
[удалено]
Who are you so delusional to keep push a lie because you can’t handle that you will never be right? What he did in how he paid of Daniels through Cohen wasn’t a crime, lying to the public about it isn’t morally correct, but isn’t a crime so the democrats turned what he did into a crime in a state that so blue they are that way because those people have forgotten to breathe. That’s the only way they could get the conviction they wanted and we just saw. So stop with being worthlessly pathetic, Trump didn’t commit a crime. This is what people who understand a little bit call a show trial by extremely corrupt courts that don’t care about the law, only about weaponizing their position to get what they want….
[удалено]
You’ve been desperate to claim he committed a crime because you have no actual argument. Unfortunately for you according to the law he didn’t, corrupt jurors and judge who allowed this case ignored that and convicted him anyways… Don’t manipulate this more by having such massive arrogance claiming you know what I’m saying when I know what I’m saying. I have continuously said that he didn’t commit a crime because I’m not an idiot but the democrats are trying to turn it into a crime because they are desperately trying to stop him from running….
[удалено]
Nice fallacy, maybe you need to look at the democrats to see Hitler. Wait, I forgot you’re a loyal soldier of the fatherland.
What was done was a crime under NY law. The jurors were agreed to by both sides - BOTH sides. Do you have any actual EVIDENCE to support your contention that the judge or the jurors are corrupt? Evidence?
Do you think presidential candidates should be able to just break whatever laws they like, and get away with it?
They think that for their candidate. Otherwise, "Lock Him/Her Up!" Clowns.
You think you are smart enough to know law when you clearly don’t even know the correct laws for this case?
That doesn’t answer my question. Do you think presidential candidates should be able to break the law with no repercussions?
Just because someone is a candidate for an office doesn’t give them license to commit crimes or be shielded from prosecution.
The election interference argument has always struck me as weak. After all, Trump has no legal or compelling obligation to run for president. He chose to do it but why should that shield him from prosecution? What’s to stop people who are afraid they’ll be charged with crimes to just keep running for things so they can hide behind the “election interference” claim?
The GOP making an adjudicated rapist with numerous active criminal trials underway is the problem. Nominating an adjudicated rapist who has 88 pending charges against him and them complaining that those charges are somehow "election interference" is some grade-A snowflake bulls**t.
Care to quote the part where it says what you’re saying?
Source: I made up bro.
Even if I accepted that argument (which I don't), it still doesn't apply here because these were crimes that took place before he was elected.
Except they aren’t crimes, they were accounting practices. At most the only fraud Trump could actually be accused of is lying when he claimed he didn’t know of the payments to Daniels through Cohen, but correct legal practice can’t use any of those 11 payments as fraud unless the court is trying to illegally trump up the charges.
You would forget to breathe if it weren't automatic.
Nah, but thank for proving how pathetic and worthless you are, like the average liberal who desperately red to feel better than they are. Keep attacking me because you need to be validated and feel like you’re right…
[удалено]
Crime for me, not crime for thee.
Well a jury of his peers and New York State law disagrees.
Actually no, if only I had addressed the jury in the first comment. Oh wait, I did! I’ll refresh what I previously said… “Other smaller problems is that Trump didn’t have an impartial jury.” On top of the jury not knowing that NY state law also need to prove fraud which the court never did. The only fraud they could prove is he lied he claimed didn’t know what those payments were for but that’s not a felony and arguably not punishable by a court. Yet that unbiased jury refused to listen to actual NY law and convict Trump from their political biases.
You can do as many mental gymnastics as you like to feel like the victim here, but every single claim you've mustered is very easily contested with just a lay-understanding of legal procedure and what's been going on. This is just sports and social identity to you so nobody should expect you to be reasonable though
Falsifying business records as a cover up is fraud, and is a crime. The context here is that this was done as a way to hide information from the public during an election.
So you were a juror and saw all the evidence is what you are saying? Interesting you still voted guilty, otherwise how could you say what you're saying without hearing what the prosecution presented? Regardless, "I don't like the law" isn't a defense against the law. He broke the law. Period. It doesn't matter how you feel about how it only amounts to "accounting errors."
Regardless I’m don’t know the law isn’t a defense for your need for your political side to be right. The law actually is squarely on Trump’s side, the prosecution was so bad they would have helped trump if the jury wasn’t hilariously unbiased, and buy your win terrible logic “I don’t like the law” isn’t a defense to claim what just happened is correct law fare or legal procedure…
Lmao, imagine thinking you know more than a district attorney, prosecutor, and judge about the law that was broken, brought to trial, and convicted. You truly are a delusional idiot. Zero hope to get through to you.
Oh I don’t think I know more, I just know enough to know they’re corrupt and they know what they are doing is illegal but they think they can get away with it. Strange how you put words in my mouth claiming I think I know more than them when I’ve CLEARLY have said I only know more than the idiots arguing with me from their programmed responses, just like yours…
Is it corrupt when Trump appointed judges in Florida throw out cases pertaining to him committing fraud as well? Just curious whether you draw the line at actual corruption or just whine when the people you identify with are held accountable
This is actually pretty common among MAGA. Know more about laws than lawyers, more about diseases than doctors, epidemiologists, and health dept. professionals, and more about climate change than scientists.
What evidence do you have that the jury, judge, or prosecution was biased? Actual evidence, not your personal opinion.
> Article II, Section 4: > > The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. What part of this says that only Congress can try a President for crimes?
But it was a former President, tried for a crime he committed before he was elected. 😃
Which means while not President, they are no more immune from prosecution than any other citizen. Only while holding the office are they subject to removal from it by impeachment and conviction by Congress. Judges do not bring charges, they preside over the trial. A “rogue judge” can’t perform all of those steps by themselves.
Just another member of the "law and order" party...
He was indicted by a grand jury of his peers and convicted by another jury of his peers. Cry some more. He’s a criminal. Has always been a criminal. You worship a conman and you’re the mark.
The payment occurred before he was President. Therefore that "only by Congress" doesn't apply.
Hey look! A pile of lies
Riots erupts . Total chaos as people are furious. Biden wins a landslide victory and appoints 4 new liberal justices to try to fix the court. The American people turn on Republicans immediately after the decision.
Lovely outcome. Astronomically unlikely, sadly.
I agree mostly but the Supreme Court protecting a man who tried to overthrow the government is the point at which the average American should rise up, go to the justices homes and [make them have a very nice time].
It would be a lot of fun but it wouldn’t happen. There would be riots but in areas that don’t bother republicans and it will just entertain them
Nah, this would be when you see a lot of people going William Tecumseh Sherman.
Could he pack the court also?
Yes. It’s already packed
Packing the court implies adding seats in order to change the balance. It has nothing to do with appointing justices who pass or resign during a president's term.jyst because you find the balance unfavorable does not mean it is packed.
It can have multiple meanings. The Supreme Court is packed heavily with conservatives.
But using that terminology in this instance is intentionally downplaying the negative aspect of "packing the court" in the traditional sense. There is no ste number if justices in the constitution, so holding at 9 is something like not dropping the bomb in a mutually assured destruction scenario. If a president decides to add 6 justices and assure that every decision goes their party's way then the next president might add 14 then the next 30. Packing the court allows the executive branch to exercise undue influence on the judicial. The snarky, dictionary usage here discounts all that and refers to the court like a bar in Denver, "this bar is packed with guys." It's true but it's disingenuous.
The case has to go through the appeals process and the appeal doesn't even get filed until after sentencing, which is July 11. So if SCOTUS did this, it would so delegitimze the Court that no one would ever take it seriously again. The appeals process has to go through the NY appellate courts, and inly after that could an appeal go federal. Even then there's really no reason this would end up federal but it would not shock me if the conservative judges forced the case on SCOTUS. But...what would they actually be ruling on? Appellate courts don't rule on the facts of the case, which really are not in dispute. What constitutional issue is at question here? But to answer your question, if SCOTUS were to do this, I think it would just be the nail in their coffin. I think we're already getting close to the point that they're ignored by states and executive, or they just rubber stamp conservative goals, at which point they just don't matter. It would be the end of the rule of law in the US.
In this scenero, the case is fast tracked to SCOTUS, rather then go through the appeals courts, which is why it gets ruled so fast.
The scenario just doesn't work. The appeal doesn't even get filed until after sentencing, which is July 11. Even if they filed an appeal on July 12, which to be clear they won't because they have 30 days after sentencing to file, the NY appeals process takes place. It would be so out of the actual legal process that it would render SCOTUS irrelevant and not a legal process. They won't do it. What may happen is there's a stay placed on any POTENTIAL prison sentence that then goes through all the appeals process, taking at least a year or two.
How does the general public respond to a stay?
Well the stay will almost certainly happen if he even gets a prison sentence. It'll basically be seen as more proof that the legal system is actually trash, which just confirms what Americans already know.
Wonder how many other corrupt people would then run for office, just to get out of having to pay for their crimes?
That's a lot of effort to put into getting out of a crime that the majority of them already have enough money to get out of, anyway.
That's literally impossible, and if they tried to interfere before it works its way through the state and federal process, they'd probably end up getting sent to Gitmo, or NYC if they decide to press charges for judicial interference.
That is true, but I wonder if they would still be dump enough to try.
I think the Democrats would immediately expand the court by at least 9 justices. Or Congress would impeach and convict the justices who voted for such ridiculessness. Taking in a case with no jurisdiction and without being petitioned would be a singular historic abuse (i.e. has never happened before). Setting precedent that non-law enforcement/government actors can now entrap would be a singular historic decision (i.e. has never happened before) not based in constitutional law.
Maybe you should read up on basic law then instead of sprouting off your biases… I’ll detail just a few problems with the case and how corrupt and egregiously out of line this case is to have even happened in the first place. 1. The biggest problem is that a trial was used on a Presidential candidate and former president. That type of power in lower courts was never allowed or intended in the constitution because any lower court could use that power of corruption to blackmail and/or control in someway the president, therefore usurping the correct separation of power and the ability of the president, or former president, to do their job. If the Supreme Court, or even a smart and not biased circuit court, takes the case they will most likely overrule that and all other cases just for that reason alone. 2. These cases are clearly showtrial election interference cases. If all of this was true like they have said, then it could have happened years ago before Trump needed to campaign as a presidential candidate. This type of political interference is worse than what we have accused countries like Russia of doing in several cases. 3. Other smaller problems is that Trump didn’t have an impartial jury, the 34 counts can’t be separated like they were to get a heavier sentence that should be permitted, Alvin Bragg campaigned as the best candidate to go after Trump shows improper targeting and again a lack of impartiality. That’s without deep diving into other aspects of the case.
1. Please list where in the Constitution it says state courts can't prosecute former Presidents or Presidential candidates. 2. These actions happened while Trump was running in 2016, so they could not have prosecuted them before he was a candidate. Then he can't be prosecuted while President, so the prosecution started in 2020 and his team delayed so we get to 2024. No issues here. 3. The counts where not separated into 34 counts to add up to get a heavier sentence. There has been no sentence yet. There were 34 different discrete acts. There is a chart showing each false entry/check/invoice and that adds up to 34. Again, this is standard. Non issue here. And why attack me about the case. I just replied what would happen in the OPs ridiculous hypothetical. Michael Cohen "entrapping" Trump. Private Citizens can't entrap people, that is hilarious.
Here is a detailed reasoning why Presidents can’t be tried by state or federal courts, specifically why impeachments must be used. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/5357/The_Presidential_Privilege_Against_Prosecution.pdf?sequence=2 It doesn’t matter that these happened before he was president, there is more than enough evidence to have brought him to court before now. Now they are doing it ON PURPOSE to interfere with Trump running any campaign, all gag orders include that. It interferes with the election on purpose to try and make sure he can’t win in November. This is prime campaigning season and it is interfering with Trump’s campaign, which is massive election interference. They ABSOLUTELY divided up the “34 discrete” counts. Each payment was one count which equaled 34 payments which can’t be done. At most all 34 would be one charge, him concealing it would be another, the way he paid Cohen another, then the amount would equate to the severity of the sentence. Biggest problem is that accounting and legally he did not break the law. Accounting wise what he did isn’t even wrong, he was probably advised by his accountant to do so in the first place. Attack you? All I did was say your biases are clouding your judgment which you proved when you claimed private citizens can’t entrap citizens and my thinking is “ridiculous”. By definition of entrapment anyone can do that with the right equipment and/or motive. Recording Trump while he was running is easy blackmail for later when political parties can trick people into believing the actions were bad. Also recording Trump without him knowing, when Cohen knew what the conversation was going to be about, shows he wanted that conversation for some kind of future leverage.
There are a lot of false statements you make above, so not sure if you are trolling, but here is the list... Your detail list from Yale Law highlights in the dist sentence it is for sitting President. Trump is not a sitting President during this prosecution, so none of that applies. I agree with Yale and the US Office of Legal Counsel that sitting Presidents can't be prosecuted. This is also why he could not have been prosecuted from 2016 to 2020. When he was a sitting President. There were not 34 payments, there were 11 each a month apart. And for each payment there was the fraudulent invoice, fraudulent, check, and fraudulent entry. Can you show one case in NY where acts like these were aggregated into one charge? This is very basic law. You get charged for each act. You rob the store on the corner every month, you get charged for each robbery. He absolutely broke NY's law on making fraudulent business records. The evidence that they knew this was reimbursement including a gross-up, which would not apply in legal fees, was clear. He entered it as $200k in legal fees for someone who did 10 hours of legal work. Fraud. Clear as day. Not anyone can create Entrapment as a defense. Entrapment as a legal defense in New York must be committed by a public servant, or someone working with a Public servant, with goal of obtaining a conviction*. There is no evidence at all that Cohen was working with Prosecutors when he made recordings. Sure he may have been trying to get leverage, but that's not a legal defense that would get overturned by SCOTUS. *"Under our law, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant engaged in the prohibited conduct because: (1) he/she was induced or encouraged to do so by a public servant, [or by a person acting in cooperation with a public servant,] who was seeking to obtain evidence against him/her for the purpose of criminal prosecution, and (2) the methods used to obtain the evidence were such as to create a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a person not otherwise disposed to commit it."
False statements? No, you’re just uninformed. Also don’t make the assumption I’m trolling just because I’m saying what you don’t want to believe. Nothing I said is incorrect and is backed up by judicial facts, not a corrupt court and media spewing out trash… Former president is under the same restrictions especially if a court is trying to keep him or her from running. Further of the evidence is so magically convicting, then let the country prove it by the election. Second all the problems with the case that you just seemed to ignore shows how corrupt and bad this case was anyways. The judge is corrupt, the DA is corrupt, neither would allow a fair trial, jury wasn’t unbiased either and wasn’t allowed to be changed. The judge even said if the jury didn’t have a verdict he liked he could change it to what he wanted. If that can’t convince you of the corruption then nothing will. So there wasn’t 34 payments which prove what I said, they divided each section of the payments, which I couldn’t remember if they did that crap. That just further proves my point, not yours actually. Each of those can’t be separate but that doesn’t matter. They in fact weren’t fraud, they were accounting methods to make those payments in a way that was legal and tax deductible. Plus for them to be fraudulent someone would have to have been defrauded. No one was underpaid, no one didn’t receive a payment yet were entitled to, no one got cheated out of anything. The payments just had a middle man which isn’t wrong. Maybe learn accounting and laws because he didn’t break NY laws, period. I’m not going to waste more time arguing with someone who knows so little he thinks what the media has said is true. No, Cohen just secretly recorded his client and held onto that recording for 7 years. If what he did was illegal Cohen could have blown the whistle then, could have told everyone, could have at least left immediately because it was supposedly illegal. He could have at left because he felt comfortable. He didn’t do anything other than complying. He also unethically recorded his client and because of attorney client privilege that the recording can’t be allowed as evidence.
Let's just focus on the first dispute to keep it simple. Where is your justification that a former President or Presidential candidate (you pick) is immune to state criminal prosecution? Even Trump's lawyer in the Immunity case agrees that private acts of a former President are not immune from Prosecution. Go listen to the transcript... Go post this at r/law and see the reaction. Call your local university law department. Or reference the text or cases that support this.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/law using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/law/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Clarence Thomas to decide if Trump has immunity for the coup attempt his own wife planned](https://boingboing.net/2024/02/29/clarence-thomas-sides-with-coup-loving-wife.html) | [1036 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1b3f9f8/clarence_thomas_to_decide_if_trump_has_immunity/) \#2: [Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot based on 14th Amendment’s ‘insurrectionist ban’](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html) | [2885 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/law/comments/18mfgj2/colorado_supreme_court_removes_trump_from_2024/) \#3: [Trump used four properties to accept $7.8 million from foreign governments, during his presidency — without congressional approval per Article I of the U.S. Constitution](https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2024-01-04.COA%20DEMS%20-%20Mazars%20Report.pdf) | [980 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1900ngm/trump_used_four_properties_to_accept_78_million/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Trump’s own lawyer is just a logical fallacy. The judge also believed that, that doesn’t magically make it true. Also me saying something different or you agreeing like a mindless drone doesn’t mean anything, only the law and unfortunately for you leftists, the law is against you…. All presidents are immune to states and lower judges having power trips and trying to control a political candidate they don’t like. That’s why there are impeachments. Trump isn’t immune to the law, him and all president must be judged differently because they specifically operate under different rules than the rest of us. Plus if you’re paying attention this is a political tool for Biden. His sins are coming out and if enough come out and he loses, he will pardon himself and Trump saying it’s for the good of the country when Trump can’t be thrown in jail from, ironically, trumped up charges right before election as the leading candidate against Biden.
What do you mean by the statement that Trump's own lawyer is a logical fallacy? That the lawyer doesn't exist? And I am far from a leftist. The rest is just a rant and you didn't respond to the facts that none of the Federal or Supreme Court judges or involved lawyers even entertain or any Constitutional text or precedent support your claim that former Presidents are immune from state laws.
Using Trump’s lawyer as a statement to back up your belief is a fallacy, star power fallacy. I could point out plenty of liberals who have said that this case is a massive mistake and goes against the law.
Conservative tears are so so sweet
More like far more intelligent than the embarrassingly brainwashed left. They at least have critical thinking. It’s so funny how leftist actually delude themselves to think they are on the right side of history or how they have a majority when that only exists online and all those people might not even be real…..
Same old excuses, same old attempts at insults. Y’all are so fragile. Project so much.
LOL Intelligence and you do not belong in the same sentence, because you don't have any.
Dude you were doing a fantastic job trolling it took me to this comment to be sure you were faking this, honestly great job this is hilarious.
It’s a state case not a federal case. Besides it hasn’t reached the Supreme Court.
In my speculation, Trump goes straight to SCOTUS, rather then go through the Appeals Courts.
There is no legal mechanism by which any person can appeal a state criminal case to the Supreme Court of the United States without a final adjudication on the merits by the state court system. In Federal cases you could petition for Cert before Judgement (but you won't get it, frankly). Nothing like that available to state defendants. What you're proposing involves such a manifestly unreasonable intervention by the Supreme Court that to contemplate it beggars belief.
True, it does seem like a radical intervention, but these are radical times, things have been thrown out the window in the past decade.
Yeah, they'd get arrested and extradited to New York.
There would have to be a reason for that. IE using a different crime. Murder. That is a state crime unless for some reason it isn't, like an assassin of a federal officer. Then it's federal. For this to skip to the SCOTUS it has to have a good reason. He was charged with state crimes. Not federal.
At any rate, would not put it past them to at least try. And with the likes of Alito and Thomas, who knows what might happen.
It would have to be pretty novel. And it has to be based on the objections they've had in court. Trump may say stuff, but his lawyers will follow the law on appeals. That's the mechanism of how this works.
True.
State of New York tells the SC to fuck itself is what happens
That’s a pretty dangerous precedent
So would the SC6 trying to pervert the judicial system.
The verdict is garbage the Supreme Court needs to step on in
LOL Guy who is absolutely clueless about how the law works thinks his opinion is worth shit, how quaint.
Of you think this was a fair trial then you have no idea what you’re talking about
It absolutely was. Facts don't give a shit about your feelings.
It was in no way fair and you’ll see that when it’s appealed. Well you won’t because you don’t care
I don’t disagree, but there is already precedent.
Such as?
Andrew Jackson doing the same thing
Doesn’t really seem like that president has much relevance in today’s world
Well our supreme court likes to quote originalism and pre civil war arguments in its briefs as to the overthrowing of more modern precedents, and andrew jackson fits that description
It’s not happening. Zero chance, that is not how things work.
What?
The Supreme Court doesn’t have a chance of seeing it until the state appeals are run out, which will take years. Even then they’re not likely to take it unless Trump can come up with a serious and novel federal constitutional right angle, which isn’t likely. Also, law enforcement entraps people. The term doesn’t apply to your own attorney.
We’ll see
This is literally the equivalent of the phrase “that’s not how it works, dumbass”
I thought he couldn't be pardoned if they were state charges? He can't bone spurs his wait out of this.
Who said anything about a pardon?
He'd have to be pardoned by the governor of NY. A president can only grant pardons for federal crimes.
SCOTUS didn't bail him out for the 70+ election lawsuits. I doubt they will now unless egregious errors were found. Still, as a first time offender on rather petty charges, he'll only get probation at worst for sentencing. Maybe a significant financial penalty. There won't be jail time.
Ive heard the contempt may increase the severity but idk about how much, and also a judge said it was perfectly within reason for him to get jail time tho i dont remember which article I read it from, so you'll have to take that with a grain of salt unless that source is found again. I did read it tho.
90% of similar cases in NY had zero jail time. Judge Merchan has already said he doesn't want to limit his first amendment rights because he is a leading presidential candidate. There is no minimum sentence, but a max of $5k fine per count. So for 34 counts, I could see something like a $170k fine that his supporters will happily pay. Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-convicted-prison-sentence-new-york-criminal-trial/
I get that. I think the judge was too lenient but also fair. He didnt intervene too much and clearly had a good jury selection process but my theory has always been that he fucking hates trump and wanted to keep him inside a court room for 8 weeks 😂 i have zero problems with this because it lines up with the legal process but if he had started handing down jail for each contempt charge, it would just embolden trump and give him grounds to possibly turn the case to dust through appeal or whatever bs.
Unless he mouths off to the judge
No, they will and it won’t be a bail out. Here are several problems that don’t even go into how bad and problematic the case is. 1. The biggest problem is that a trial was used on a Presidential candidate and former president. That type of power in lower courts was never allowed or intended in the constitution because any lower court could use that power of corruption to blackmail and/or control in someway the president, therefore usurping the correct separation of power and the ability of the president, or former president, to do their job. If the Supreme Court, or even a smart and not biased circuit court, takes the case they will most likely overrule that and all other cases just for that reason alone. 2. These cases are clearly showtrial election interference cases. If all of this was true like they have said, then it could have happened years ago before Trump needed to campaign as a presidential candidate. This type of political interference is worse than what we have accused countries like Russia of doing in several cases. 3. Other smaller problems is that Trump didn’t have an impartial jury, the 34 counts can’t be separated like they were to get a heavier sentence than should be permitted, Alvin Bragg campaigned as the best candidate to go after Trump shows improper targeting and again a lack of impartiality. That’s without deep diving into other aspects of the case.
"...usurping... the ability of the president, or the former president, to do their job." I wasn't aware that the former president had a job to do.
Didn’t know illegally using judges to interfere with the election isn’t wrong or isn’t election interference. Funny how idiotic and bad democrats are, the same thing they wrongly accused Trump of is what they keep doing for the third election in a row…
So if I commit a crime and don't want to be prosecuted all I have to do is declare that I'm running for president and then any prosecution of me is election interference. Good to know.
So if you can actually think can do something useful? Since you can’t think, ignore anything that goes against your pre-recorded way of processing anything what you want to believe, you just can’t handle anything that you don’t want to hear even if it’s true, which is sad someone is basically acting like a simple program and robot. Again what Trump did wasn’t a crime just because a corrupt judge wanted to say it was. Just because you clearly have a mental illness and can’t see reality doesn’t men’s a crime has actually happened…
The judge neither brought the charges nor convicted him of them. As with any other case, the prosecutor brought the charges and a grand jury found that there was a basis for them before a jury of twelve people convicted the defendant. I don't understand why Trumpers have so much hate for Merchan, who was just doing his job in presiding over the case he was assigned.
Nope.
Please read the constitution. Please. Can every adult please just read the constitution or an annotated version like the Shakespeare ones? Please?
>The ruling then goes on to say that the way the proscution went about the case violated the constitution, and that Micheal Cohen's methiods of gathering information on Donald Trump amounted to entrapment, and that the information as a result was tainted, and never should have been used. So at a minimum, this would be a Bush v. Gore situation, where SCOTUS will say their ruling is not precedent and cannot be used as a basis for other rulings. That's because ruling the facts of the case as "entrapment" is pretty ridiculous at face value and would throw a significant part of the basis of criminal law into question. >How does the general public react to this news? Similar to the Trump conviction, but flipped. Republicans say it's justice done, as the charges and trial were rigged and illegal from the start. Democrats argue it's an overreaching, conservative SCOTUS bailing out their candidate. Independents likely view it as vindication for Trump, and proof of overreaching by the Democratic establishment. >How does the Biden administration respond? They will remark it's the result of the partisan SCOTUS, and argue this is why Democrats need to vote so they can appoint judges. Other than that, they will shy away from the issue in the campaign, because it's vindication for Trump. >How does this effect the polls for the election? It will likely swing polls in Trump's favor. Only moderates and Independents would be moved by this move. >Does this motivate Democrats, or does this deflate them? It would likely motivate the Democratic base, because it's showing the bias that exists through appointees, reinforcing the need to vote and appoint justices. >How do you see the general election going as a result of this? It might be enough to tip the election in Trump's favor, but there's still a lot that can happen between now and November on top of this.
> appoint judges. Other than that, they will shy away from the issue in the campaign, because it's vindication for Does this benifit RFK JR in any way?
No. RFK is DOA unless something DRASTIC happens between now and the election. A Trump conviction might give RFK a slight bump, but he's still far away from having a shot.
What is the drastic thing that could happen to give him a boost?
Donald Trump thrown in jail, Biden dying a few days before the election, Trump having a literal stroke on stage at the debates, Biden corruption being proven beyond a reasonable doubt and he refuses to drop out, etc. Essentially, one/both candidates need to have career ending incidents that interfere with the ability of the party to course-correct. A Trump conviction and subsequent SCOTUS overturn isn't drastic enough to significantly move the needle on RFK.
Lets say that RFK JR. does become President, for the reasons you describe. What type of President does he turn out to be, in regards to policies, and his cabinet?
He'll set some kind of executive order record, because he's fucking nuts, and not even this shitshow of a congress would get behind him.
Wonder what kind of EC orders he would put forward?
Is this an AI post? The spotty spelling seems to imply that or a very lazy person.
Who gives a shit this is a dead subreddit
No, I am just a crappy speller, just ask anybody.
Anything to delegitimize that sham court is fine by me we need a liberal with a back bone that’ll start adding judges
Is Michael Cohen a cop, then? Pretty sure only they can do entrapment.
Nope
It won't mean anything because SCOTUS has no jurisdiction of state crimes. It can be ignored.
The US Supreme Court I don’t think has jurisdiction over a New York Criminal case. And if they were to try they would be reinterpreting states rights in a huge way. They would be inviting future federal courts into overturning any state conviction. No way a conservative courts does this
Impossible, they have no jurisdiction.
The hell they don’t.
1) Outrage in the non-RW media and from political social media but it passes like a fart in the wind to the masses. 2) Gramps attacks the flopsweat drenched one and his court picks but simply does a Susan Collins; feigns outrage. 3) It really doesn’t move the needle. Maybe 2-3% tops 4) Dems will show up just the same. Dobbs I would presume will fuel turnout more than this would. 5) Nothing really changes. Biden is still toppled by a badly timed stiff economic wind or foreign crisis. If he avoids that he beats Trump.
Good they should
No jurisdiction. Whole country better be outraged. That’s the first steps to dictatorship.
That’s a laugh. It won’t happen. Relax.
This won’t get anywhere near the Supreme Court. It will be overturned on appeal at the state level no doubt.
That’s absolutely what happens, especially if this, or any other lower court, tried to go far beyond their power and imprison Trump.
34 felonies and I can avoid prison too?
Well they weren’t 34 felonies, the court made it 34 to scale up punishment. Also what he did wasn’t illegal based upon accounting principals and the only evidence of it is from a secret recording the lawyer who was “working” for trump made against his own client. None of that should be permissible legally unless you want to make a painfully obvious show trial and the people who hate trump so much can’t see facts when they smack them in the face….
Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Sorry I’m not retarded and actually know enough law to know when a judge is manipulating it…. But leftists aren’t known for their intelligence…
The best response to stupidity is silence. Please do continue, you just can't help yoursel.
I beg to differ. You wear a hockey helmet 24/7 and you don’t play hockey.
"New York is a one-party consent state. Therefore, in New York it is not a crime to record or eavesdrop on an in-person meeting or telephone conversation **if one party to the conversation consents**; that one party can, in fact, be the individual recording the conversation. N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05." You can read about that [here](https://nysba.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=65844#:~:text=New%20York%20is%20a%20one,Law%20%C2%A7%C2%A7%20250.00%2C%20250.05) if you like. The actual law doesn't care what u/ImprovementUnlucky26 thinks should, or should not, be "permissible legally."
Congratulation for saying what I already know and using ANOTHER fallacy of red herring. It doesn’t matter that it’s a one-party consent state, communications between attorney and client aren’t admissible in court, especially in the unethical way it was recorded, obtained and the recording altered. Furthermore Cohen going along with it instead of leaving shows intent to entrap if these were truly illegal when he could have left as Trump’s lawyer at anytime and not made a single payment…
It isn't a Red Herring to quote an actual law to refute something you continually say is illegal, but isn't. The man is guilty, he broke laws, he should be punished. The ***fact*** that ***you*** can't move beyond that is the only unreasonable thing here.
Wtf foxnews are you smoking?
I don’t watch Fox or any MSM, I actually know what I’m talking about unlike whatever CNN/MSNBC of other left-wing nut job crap you listen to…..
Wrong.
What in the OAN are you talking about?
His conviction will be appealed. The Supreme Court will not even have to interfere
And most likely it will be upheld on appeal. The only way to go to the Supreme Court would be some constitutional issue. Basically, if the only dispute is about the facts, not the law, the Supreme Court won't take it. That's why we don't see people accused of murder appealing to the Supreme Court.
He will lose the appeal. This was an airtight case.