1. Dershowitz says Trump's lawyers should seek to expedite the sentencing. Make it next week!
2. And if the judge says no to that, go immediately to the New York Court of Appeals — skip the Appellate Division — and propose an expedited appeal — 2 weeks to file briefs and argument within a month. With all this time pressure, we could get an opinion by August. Trump's antagonists have been stressing the need for proceedings to move quickly so that voters will get the information we need. Now, it will be Trump making that argument. Dershowitz doesn't talk about the value of this discourse in the political realm, but you can see it.
3. Dershowitz outlines the grounds for appeal, stressing the recent Harvey Weinstein case, where the New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction.
4. If the Court of Appeals affirms, then take it to the Supreme Court and ask it to expedite the case. "If I'm Trump's lawyer, everything is speed, speed, speed, speed."
5. Dershowitz says "No, we don't" to Biden's statement that we all need to subordinate ourselves to the decision produced in the legal process. The legal system, Dershowitz informs us, is "deeply flawed." And: "This case was rigged."
ADDED: I received email from someone in a good position to know:
A couple of things about Alan Dershowitz’s recommendations for Trump’s lawyers. First, as to what seems like a lengthy adjournment for sentencing. New York law requires the Department of Probation to draft a pre-sentence report for any defendant convicted of a felony. This cannot be waived. All of us in Manhattan know that the department will not under any circumstance deliver such a report in less than six weeks. In addition, between now and July 11 there are two weekdays in which the courts and all other related agencies, including the Department of Probation are closed for business: June 19 (“Juneteenth”) and July 4. My point is that there are legal and practical reasons for the adjournment, other than the judge’s alleged instransigence.
Second, as one of your commenters has pointed out, there may be a way for the defense to bypass the intermediate Appellate Division, but I’m not aware of it. If there is, it most likely rests with the discretion of the Court of Appeals. Given the composition of the current Court of Appeals, I’d be surprised if the court exercised its discretion in this defendant’s favor.
On the other hand, I’ve been surprised by them before.
পোস্টগুলি
১৬২টি মন্তব্য:
I like it. Trump has been subjected to The Man’s rules and timetables. Go on offense.
Trump can assign 12 errors, but the first one would be the winner and the other 11 would not need to be analyzed by the appellate court. The best issue was the instruction that the jury could pick 1 of 3 follow-on crimes and did not have to be unanimous.
The best issue was the instruction that the jury could pick 1 of 3 follow-on crimes and did not have to be unanimous.
=================
so was it one felony conviction or triply hung jury? can Trump should insist on three retrials for proper judicial process resolution
They should make sure they get paid .....
The proper verb for Dershowitz’s representation isn’t can’t, but won’t. It’s a personal rule. He can suspend it anytime he wants for any reason he wants.
We’re all assuming this conviction helps Trump, and early indications are that it is helping him, but we’ll need a couple weeks for it to settle out and see where the casual observers land. Keeping it on the front page may not help him. Or it may.
Rich is now in the phase of just throwing crap against the wall. We have all seen this. When one of these dedicated trolls finds that every time they make any kind of a statement that is simply accepted as fact in whatever hothouse liberal blog they makes their true home gets swatted down effortlessly, they fall into a pattern of just throwing out content free jibes, because it's less embarrassing for them.
I note another reversible item. Either the Prosecutors, Judge and Jury are claiming the NDA prevented them from voting for Hillary Clinton in New York, where she won in a landslide. Or, they are claiming the NDA prevented her from being elected in other states, which is a federal crime and New York interfering with other state elections.
Blogger imTay said...
Rich is now in the phase of just throwing crap against the wall.
No. Rich has never been in any other phase. He's a monkey doing what monkey's do.
What's funny is that Hillary doesn't even dispute that she illegally destroyed federal records, in the State of New York, when she destroyed her emails, emails that were created when she was Secretary of State in the conduct of her office, some of them between her and Obama himself, in furtherance of trying to win an election by, what can only be considered fraud by the standards of this prosecution. Emails that were under subpoena by the House Oversight Committee, which has a Constitutional duty to oversee her actions as SoS, especially since she only took the job if Obama promised that there would be no Inspector General appointed to oversee the State Department, which was required by law.
Why would the court of appeals wreck their summer with expediting? They won’t care about a perception of hypocrisy- it wasn’t them what argued for speed…
Thanks for the correction on the bad apostrophe, which I've deleted... along with your now-irrelevant comment.
I appreciate notes on errors.
Maybe he can let his attorneys take charge this time. I know many of you think his antics in court were some kind of three dimensional chess, but I wonder if they didn't hurt him.
Nothing Trump did in or out of court made the slightest difference to the outcome of this trial. It was a rigged show trial.
Hillary’s private email server was created with the intent to avoid FOIA request for what she was doing. She stated this. She had no interest in the public knowing what she was doing in a public office. Yes, by this verdict standard, she was with holding that information to interfere with an election. If the destruction of that information is still within the statute of limitations, then that’s another crime. Alas, there is no statute of limitations for mishandling classified information.
"This case was rigged."
Ya don’t say!
/sarc
BTW, does not the self-evident rigging of this case strongly support the assertion that the 2020 election was rigged? Asking for a friend.
"the Times also claims the jury found Trump “guilty of falsifying business records to prevent voters from learning about a sexual encounter that he believed would have been politically damaging.” How did records created in 2017 “prevent voters from learning” about the Daniels tryst before they cast their ballots the previous year?"
Yes, it was Trump's antics in court that turned this trial into some kind of hot tub time machine, not the fact that the whole trial was a corrupt farce.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. ― George Orwell, 1984
The only argument that our seminar posters seem to have is that a NYC courtroom, controlled exclusively by Democrats, cannot possibly act corruptly. Only Republicans can act corruptly. Which is kind of amusing because just a couple days ago Biden told a black audience that the "courts were rigged against them..." What a minute! Didn't he just violate his own precept that the judgements of the courts must be simply accepted?
Meanwhile the Supreme Court and Cannon slow walks their decision on Trump related cases.
I don't think a push for haste is going to work as well in the media as Trump supporters as they think. At some point it comes offbas desperation.
That was a terrific video! I seldom watch videos, but that was worth taking the time to see through to the end. I hope his message is widely shared.
Is there any reason to suppose that Appeals Court judges are less political than the DA or Judge Merchan.....A jury of their peers: This case by its very nature was political. Shouldn't the jury pool be chosen from a venue where there's a chance that some of the jurors are Republican....This was a state case. Can any of the issues be appealed to the Federal courts?....Be careful what you wish for. It's not a remote possibility that Judge Merchan will swiftly remand Trump to prison.....I'm an old man. I run a few errands, and I have to take a nap when I get home. Both of our Presidential candidates are also old men, and Biden is a very old man. I don't get why they're running. They've both been President. They made it. What more do they want to prove? Trump's got a billion dollars and a good golf game. His life would be a lot more pleasant without politics. I suppose Biden as President gets a lot of skilled nursing care that isn't available to non-Presidents, but his life also would be more pleasant outside of the Oval Office. Even more than the usual pathology of Presidential candidates, there's something grandiose about the ambitions of these two men.
I don't believe there is any justice or fairness to be had for Donald Trump anywhere in New York. They will lock him up.
The Republican party wants Trump in jail as much as the Democrats if not more. They won't help him. There will be some theater in Washington for fund-raising purposes, but that's all.
Obviously, they don't really believe in the things they say they believe in. We've known that for years. It's why we elected Trump in the first place and it's why they try to destroy him.
Sorry to be so negative, but...(heavy sigh). Trump supporters are not organized. We're a herd of cats and Trump is our cat lady. When the sheriff leads the cat lady away, what happens to the cats? Some of us, the pretty ones like myself, might get lucky and be adopted. Most of us though... neutered and euthanized. The shelter people do both because they can get more federal funds that way.
BTW, does not the self-evident rigging of this case strongly support the assertion that the 2020 election was rigged?
Gell-Mann amnesia is a real thing. Law experts tear the rigged justice system apart then turn the page on the ‘bullshit’ of rigged elections…
does not the self-evident rigging of this case strongly support the assertion that the 2020 election was rigged?
Oh, I was figuring that the self-evident rigging of this and the other cases - beginning but decidedly not ending with the "novel" legal theories the prosecutions have employed and/or "unprecedented" decisions to charge Trump and his associates under laws that have never been used against anyone - was pre-rigging of the 2024 election.
As I pointed out in a thread from before the verdict and someone here has alluded to this morning, the timing and the judge's and prosecution's behavior in this case, which pretended to claim that anything Trump did or said before 2016 moved the needle in New York in that election, also isn't going to move the needle in New York in November.
But it could move the needle in other states where it matters. And that is blatant election interference, for which no one is going to be tried.
"Meanwhile the Supreme Court and Cannon slow walks their decision on Trump related cases."
Talk about "slow walking" when is the case going to be brought against Biden because he had classified documents in a cardboard box in his garage, documents which seem to have provided the source material for his crackhead son, who had access to those boxes, to write a letter to Burisma containing remarkably astute insights into the political situation in Ukraine, the kind of stuff that is found in State Department reports, that are, you know, classified, and then, Hunter used that kind of information to get in the door and get paid millions of dollars by the Ukrainians? Oh yeah, and Joe and Hunter commingled bank accounts, and Hunter picked up many of Joe's expenses.
Oh, it isn't, because Biden is a Democrat and Trump is a Republican. I forgot. Mark is right.
They just cant find good trolls or even meme artists
It's really too bad Trump didn't act with haste to make sure Hillary was subjected to the same legal rigor for her set up and use of her Private Server used while secretary of State and all of her lies and document destruction surrounding that Private Server.
Trump should understand now that his empty promises to go after Hillary - with no action - and a complete reversal right after his election, was the biggest mistake of his life. Regarding all of the corrupt leftist deep state - Trump and his super fans had no idea what was in store.
This Hot Tub Time Machine verdict is even better than the half a billion dollar fine that NYC imposed on Trump in an application of a hundred year old law that had never once been applied to a situation in which no-one was harmed, and in which the purported victims were quite happy to do business with Trump again, so that they could make even more money, just like they did the last time they did business with him, when the court claimed that they had been "defrauded."
It's along the lines of the E Jeanne Carrol case where the judge told the jury that "even an unwanted peck on the cheek" counted as sexual assault, and then told the public that Trump had been convicted of "rape" even as the jury explicitly did not, even when the standard of truth was only "preponderance of evidence" and not reasonable doubt.
I have a lot more respect, honestly, for Howard and his "put some ice on it" type comments, than I do for people who come on here pretending that this stuff is not a complete sham.
I was listening to Trump speak about this. oh wow -the man cannot speak well. It's such a tragedy. yeah - Biden is worse - because he truly is a husk-puppet...but... not by much.
That ignores the tripwires the regime had a justice cia and fbi a notion i realized when they tried to remove comey the lines of hawaiian judges as far as the eye can see
I enjoy watching the side that has, for several generations, lambasted decisions produced by the legal process as illegitimate because of racism - and many other reasons - now telling me that this particular decision produced by a "legal process" [sic] must be respected, because to do otherwise is "dangerous." Presumably to our sacred democracy.
Its called gaslighting both ways they never believe what they say
Sorry Never Biden, Never Putin, but your hatred of Putin is all part of the same psy-op. What has Russia ever done to us? They have taken the other side in proxy wars that we have fought over the years, that started out as civil wars that were none of our business, like Viet Nam, Korea, now Ukraine. Many of these civil wars that we started, but seriously, what has Putin done to us?
Navalny was a nazi, just look at video of his rallies, who advocate genocide against Muslims in Russia, "kill them like flies" and who, Wikileaks shows was funded by the US. The US has a long term strategy to break up the Russian Federation by setting Orthodox Christians and Muslims in that country at each other's throats, and Navalny was part of that strategy, and so, probably, was that Moscow terror attack by ISIS, the terror outfit that only attacks the CIA's enemies, and BTW, issued an apology after killing a couple of Israeli soldiers. The purpose of that attack was to gin up hatred in Russia among Christians against Muslims.
But you go ahead and nurse the hatred of Putin that the likes of Hillary and Biden and their neocon backers have put into your head, so that they can continue their war against him. Be a good rube. Maybe you have a grandson or nephew that you would like to send to fight in one of their wars.
As a voter in a democracy, it's important to hear the truth, and if you are going to simply accept the propaganda that you are fed, you may as well just flush your voter card down the toilet, because all you are doing is choosing between Coke and Pepsi, the same sugar water, branded differently.
So….the candidate who pressured 50 cabinet members to sign a statement, published in NYT, swearing that Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinfo, a week or so before an election, knowing this to be a false statement…no no no, that wasn’t election interference!
I wish Dershowitz would explain how he thinks Trump can bypass the Appellate Division and take an appeal directly to the Court of Appeals. He just says quickly, "There's a process for that," but I'm a retired NY lawyer with a lot of appellate experience and I don't know what it is.
The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals is established by the NY Constitution, and here's how the NY Constitution defines it: "Appeals to the court of appeals may be taken in the classes of cases hereafter enumerated in this section; In criminal cases, directly from a court of original jurisdiction where the judgment is of death, and in other criminal cases from an appellate division or otherwise as the legislature may from time to time provide."
That's it. This isn't a judgment of death, and the legislature hasn't provided for any bypassing of his criminal conviction. So, as I read it, the Court of Appeals simply doesn't have the Constitutional power to accept a direct appeal. Plus, there's no appeal as of right to the Court of Appeals from a criminal judgment; the Court votes on which cases to accept, and they don't explain why they do or don't accept a particular case. The NY Court of Appeals is 6 out of 7 Democrats, and the 7th was appointed by a Democratic governor. Why on earth would they accept this appeal?
If the errors are egregious and you take into account the fact that the defendant is a candidate for the presidency, rigging is the propitious language.
Like the quote says: When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
I also like Eric Weinstein’s theory of the case via X: My reaction to the Trump verdict is pretty simple. This is about previously shared *tacit* understandings needed for the functioning of a free society.
The current case and verdict seems similar to the Bork confirmation battle from almost 40 years ago: it is a sign of the breakdown of previous *shared* tacit understandings between the parties that made the US both strong and functional.
To the Democratic Party leadership, Trump represents the breakdown of an understanding that the parties not allow a populist outside their perception of a window of allowable candidates. This is akin to *their* contention in 1987 that Bork represented a nominees outside the tacit agreement not to nominate extremists. Thus they mounted a new campaign of extraordinary measures to enforce their perception.
To the Republican Party, the Democratic leadership is innovating never before seen warfare and immoral tactics by *initiating* extraordinary warfare in violation of the tacit agreement to accept the Republican Party’s right to propose reasonable candidates without hysterical bed-wetting behavior. They believe the Democratic Party is breaking the tacit agreement not to prosecute presidents or pursue legal action as part of a campaign.
Leaving the issue of who is right aside temporarily, what is happening is the acceleration of the continuing breakdown of *SHARED* **TACIT** ASSUMPTIONS. These are the backbone of our previously functional country. They are not written down. You can’t look them up
Trump and Bork are nominees portrayed as madmen by one side, that are so extreme as to require extraordinary measures. Democratic hardliners will celebrate. What will come back is a series of prosecutions by Republicans that the Democratic Party will see as evidence that Republicans are inexplicably evil.
As for what I believe? I think the Democratic Party leadership is acting like shortsighted decisions to open the doors to hell don’t matter because many are in their 80s and aren’t going to be around long enough. And they don’t care enough about their own children or their country to care about the world they leave behind after their demises. I have always said that Trump poses an existential threat. Biden joined that club a while back. He should be removing himself at his age and in his condition and Kamala should not be a heartbeat away from being commander in chief of the world’s pre-eminent thermonuclear power.
I don't think a push for haste is going to work as well in the media as Trump supporters as they think. At some point it comes offbas desperation.
Well, you know, Mark, the situation is kind of desperate, isn't it? The judge schedules sentencing for three days before the RNC - why? To put the entire Republican party in the position of being unable to take any effective action, either to support their far-and-away front runner or to find an alternative, until it's much too late? Seems a plausible theory, given, you know, the judge's daughter's business interests. To say nothing of the Democrat apparatus's efforts since 2016 to Get Trump (and to tarnish or destroy anyone who supports him) at any cost.
Obviously you've been looking at this whole farce as either a fun game, a joke on half the country, or an interesting legal exercise (if you're that Mark). It's been clear that you haven't been considering the actual significance of what's been and being done to those you disagree with.
Unlike some here, I don't want to see my political interlocutors strung up, or even just permanently sidelined. I want the chance to contest their ideas and ours, to give everyone a chance to see what works. Anything - speech codes, targeted prosecutions, lockdowns that are the functional equivalent of martial law, government efforts to pressure media to elevate a government-friendly narrative or to hide a government-unfriendly one - that interferes with the ability of everyone, everyone, to see clearly and judge for themselves how they, how we collectively, want to run our society, is anathema to me. Why isn't it to you?
At some point, your side's unwillingness to debate its ideas in an honest public forum comes off as desperation.
Trump's antagonists have been stressing the need for proceedings to move quickly so that voters will get the information we need. Now, it will be Trump making that argument. Dershowitz doesn't talk about the value of this discourse in the political realm, but you can see it.
There's a big difference between the desire to expedite the appeal of a verdict versus the pace of a prosecution. Besides, who gives a sh*t about the "political realm" at this point. The MSM is the opposition, so they can go piss up a rope.
imTay - seriously? You cannot be serious.
Putin is the same type of command and control for-life dictator the American left would love to emulate.
This isn't about what "Putin did to us". I give Trump credit for keeping Putin in a box. Putin knows Biden is weak. That's why he waited to invade Ukraine until uncle husk-puppet got in. I wouldn't be surprised if the globalist war machine/war funding/industrial complex types are all in on it with Putin- including those behind the husk-puppet.
If Trump supporters want to support Putin? wow - dumb. really really dumb. The stupidity is off the charts.
But I did see a truck on the highway supporting both Trump and Putin. Imtay - that is supremely stupid. and great way to help Trump lose.
I hope Trump and his lawyers take this advise.
Puti can be handled easily it took one drond strike in syria to keep him in check
Who sent kamala to negotiate and how did that turn out
Antifa arsonists rears their ugly anarchist heads... to reveal their left wing bona-fides - & complete hypocrisy.
Why on earth would they accept this appeal?
They would look pretty bad if they refused to accept this appeal, and the federal courts then went scorched earth on the case.
I wonder if Dershowitz can or will explain--as a lawyer--why and how the trial and/or the jury's verdict was rigged?
If it truly was rigged, and he can provide irrevocable reasoning and evidence to confirm that, it is in no one's larger benefit to allow the outcome to stand. If he truly feels it was rigged, why would he not break his own "rule" and volunteer to headline a body of attorneys in mounting an appeal to vacate the verdict?
If he won't or cannot, then he is just another partisan onlooker venting his own upset at the outcome.
Conservatives/republicans believe in 'rule of law' as supported by the Constitution - there must be heightened sense of awareness that, just like democracy, it is a weapon used by governments (particularly) to support and legitimize criminal action. History has shown this time and time again.
Democrats are using 'rule of law' as a weapon, and nothing else, and as a proverbial gauntlet to provoke those on the right. There's only so much 'turn the other cheek' to go around.
'Rule of law' is in quotes as those on the left are simply choosing to make it mean what they want it to mean as they always do with words and language.
Putin killed Alexei Navalny ... while he was in prison.
Biden(D) and his super-fans /Maddow-hate-lust fascists would love to kill Trump.
Just sayin'
"Putin is the same type of command and control for-life dictator the American left would love to emulate."
Hahaha! Are you referring to Donald's friend Putin? That guy? And what about Donald's pal Kim Jong Un? Like likes like! Birds of a feather, and all that! Hahaha!
I wonder if Dershowitz can or will explain--as a lawyer--why and how the trial and/or the jury's verdict was rigged?
If it truly was rigged, and he can provide irrevocable reasoning and evidence to confirm that, it is in no one's larger benefit to allow the outcome to stand. If he truly feels it was rigged, why would he not break his own "rule" and volunteer to headline a body of attorneys in mounting an appeal to vacate the verdict?
If he won't or cannot, then he is just another partisan onlooker venting his own upset at the outcome.
The word you're looking for is irrefutable, not irrevocable.
Merchan's ruling on the scope of allowable testimony by Brad Smith, gutting his value as a defense witness, is eminently reversible. And it is not the only one.
Hahaha! Are you referring to Donald's friend Putin? That guy? And what about Donald's pal Kim Jong Un? Like likes like! Birds of a feather, and all that! Hahaha!
Two more mystifying comments by Mr. Cook.
Commie CrumbBum Cook Comes Clean…
Film at 11…
Cook -
Putin - Xi - and the Corrupt American left have more in common than dopey Trump.
But you are known to fall for the left's bullshit.
Why can't charges be filed against Merchan and Bragg for interfering with an election?
State AG’s need to act. Alvin Bragg has coordinated with the White House to interfere in state presidential elections. The acts might have taken place outside of say, Ohio, but the interference is occurring with an Ohio election. Imagine if every Red State began prosecuting RICO Cases against Bragg and Biden. Bragg might have immunity from prosecution in NY - he doesn’t have that in Ohio.
Sound insane? Yep. Legal questionable? Very!
But, it’s morally wrong to shoot at people until they’re shootings at you. Well, the shooting has started and the Red States didn’t start it.
@Lem the artificially intelligent 08:12: I like Weinstein's analysis too, except toward the end: " I have always said that Trump poses an existential threat. Biden joined that club a while back. He should be removing himself at his age and in his condition and Kamala....".
It's a funny thing, but when commentary discusses why Biden is an 'existential threat', it's almost always backed up with examples that prove the point - dementia, obvious loss of awareness or physical control, clear befuddlement, or his political record {snort} of corruption, of on-camera peccadilloes, stretching back 50 years, or his double-standard gold-plated hypocrisy and documented flip-flops on scores of important issues, or his pure aggressive nastiness - again, on record. Like the Bork hearings, where he led that septic charge. Seven whole paragraphs with all the details, but then the 'existential threat' part just leaves everybody hanging.
But with Trump, he's an 'existential threat' because of what he's going to do - not what he's done. He'll end muh Democracy ! He'll rape women ! He'll blow it all up !
Even Weinstein does it. And indescribable existential threat, apparently. A fate so terrible, we can't even show you a simulation.
Imtay -
furthermore-
Putin and Xi are the same types of Command and Control neo-Communist authoritarians, who seek each others cooperation.
Who brought us the Chi Com virus? oh yeah -that would be the Chi Coms. (along with American gain of Function funding to the very lab where it was "leaked".)
Who made sure Social Media were pressured and punished if they didn't tow the Chim-Com/American Left lie (MSNBC line) that the virus came from a "wet market"? oh yeah... bed fellows on the American left and the Chi Coms. Who made family deals and big money off secret Chi Com deals when he was Obama's VP? see all the connections?
Putin and Xi are global allies. We know this for a fact. The left's lies cannot hide it.
I was wondering to myself just yesterday if there were a way to move the sentencing up to early June so that the appeals process could be set in motion earlier. I didn't know whether that was even possible since it is the sort of thing a defendant would usually not want and there might not be a mechanism for doing so.
We grovel before xi we let his proxies buy land after he killed a million people
Weve enabled the death of 150,000 russian troops you think that will not catch up with us eventually
If it truly was rigged, and he can provide irrevocable reasoning and evidence to confirm that, it is in no one's larger benefit to allow the outcome to stand.
I agree with the "then" part of this statement 100%. The "if" part has been hashed to death here, there, and everywhere, including by Derschowitz himself as he commented on what he observed every day in the courtroom.
And what he observed, it seems, was that the fix was in. How would you suggest he advise Trump's lawyers to respond to that situation in the state of New York, where it can be expected that the fix will continue to be in? Seems to me he's doing his best to present a legal strategy that uses the fixers' now-validated arguments in order to get in front of someone who might retain a shred of judicial ethics (or, given Trump's fundraising since the verdict, maybe partisan self-preservation may be enough).
Merchan's errors, again, have been laid out over and over. Get in front of someone who will acknowledge them and they've got a chance.
Agree in substance with Tom.
GOP needs to go after all these Dems with the same vigor and passion they went after Trump and all his people.
Two can play this game.
Why shouldn't Biden be indicted for accepting bribes? And the indictment should be in Nebraska, Oklahoma or ED of Texas.
NY appellate court deals with the first issue on the Sixth Amendment and then clumps all the remaining assignments of error together and says the misconduct of the prosecutor was so bad that the case is dismissed.
Two can play this game.
But there aren't two.
"Who brought us the Chi Com virus?"
We funded it, and when Congress passed a law forbidding US funding of "gain of function" research, Fauci changed the definition, and judged that the risks of creating a frankenvirus, which turned out to be COVID, were "acceptable." I am not saying that the ChiComs were not doing bioweapons research in the same facility, just that they were doing it with US cooperation and funding. Here, read about it yourself:
News
Published: 12 November 2015
Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18787
Obviously the ChiComs have spies who should be countered wherever possible. Obviously Joe Biden and his son are mixed up with them, we have the evidence and it's public knowledge. It's still an open question who tipped off the Chinese to the people in our spy network there and got them all rounded up and executed, and it doesn't seem that much of a stretch to associate it with Biden and Blinken. Blinken ran the Penn Biden Foundation, and had classified documents, which he had no right to have, stored there, and we know from Hunter's laptop that he had made keys to the offices where those documents were stored available to Chinese nationals, but that does't mean that it's any of our business who runs China, and that we should fight a war with them because we don't approve of how they run their country.
Did it ever occur to you that if we didn't try and turn every legitimate protest in adversary countries like China, Russia, Iran, and target countries like Georgia and Hungary, into plays for regime change, that these countries could allow more freedom of expression without the threat of being replaced by US puppets? That maybe the US is the enemy of political freedom across the globe? That maybe Soros is behind a lot of US foreign policy, and they are just bringing their techniques home?
If I am reading Dersh correctly, what he is implying is that the NY courts will stonewall the request for a speedier schedule and the political hypocrisy of that will make it easier to get a federal court to take up the case.
And as far as I know, there is nothing preventing Trump from making a direct appeal right to the top of SCOTUS mountain- given the stakes, the conduct of this trial, and the fact that the defendant is a candidate for the highest office in the land, there is a reasonably good chance SCOTUS would take the case on an expedited basis. That was the weakness of this show trial- its conduct was so egregious that its odor is a like dogshit in a closed room on a hot summer's day- no honest judge will like to see the system abused this way and might be willing to step up to clean the house.
Yes but the courts will say its nog ripe yet
"We grovel before xi we let his proxies buy land after he killed a million people"
Remember when Xi came to San Francisco and Biden and Newsom cleaned up the streets and lined them with ethnic Chinese so that it looked like the set of Flower Drum Song? These are all legitimate beefs with China, but "who rules over Taiwan?" When the Taiwanese president himself declared, as he did this week or last, not sure, that his government was the legitimate government of all of China, it makes it a civil war, and none of our business. Sounds a lot like Viet Nam to me, with a far better armed adversary on the other side.
We need to read George Washington's Farewell Address at every inauguration.
>Yancey Ward said...
And as far as I know, there is nothing preventing Trump from making a direct appeal right to the top of SCOTUS mountain- given the stakes, the conduct of this trial, and the fact that the defendant is a candidate for the highest office in the land, there is a reasonably good chance SCOTUS would take the case on an expedited basis.<
I have one word for you, Yancey: Roberts
"If I am reading Dersh correctly, what he is implying is that the NY courts will stonewall the request for a speedier schedule and the political hypocrisy of that will make it easier to get a federal court to take up the case."
What form of federal jurisdiction are you envisioning? Do we need to talk about habeas corpus and the Younger doctrine? Or are you referring to the Supreme Court?
Roberts can't prevent him from filing the appeal, Ice Nine, and unless I am mistaken, it only takes 4 to get the case accepted.
The CIA was pushing the "wet market/pandolin" story, and intimidating scientists who questioned it. Look at that paper from Nature that I linked. It even contains a disclaimer that says that even though this paper is about the creation of a dangerous virus from a coronavirus recovered from bats, and was written prior to the pandemic, it should not be inferred that research creating a virus indistinguishable from COVID, done in a lab in Wuhan, was the root of the pandemic. This was pressure from the US, not China. Matt Taibbi has it from leaked documents from the US government.
Not that China didn't push a lot of disinformation too, claiming that the virus really came from Fort Dietrich in Maryland, which was. why Trump pushed back against the ChiComs so hard on this matter, and it was US deep state people who called Trump "racist" for doing it. it would be great if all of this stuff were simple.
"What form of federal jurisdiction are you envisioning? Do we need to talk about habeas corpus and the Younger doctrine? Or are you referring to the Supreme Court?"
I am not envisioning anything other than an appeal being accepted by a federal judge somewhere, even Hawaii, issuing a judgment. Those might not be the rules of federal court procedure, but no one on the Left was following those rules anyway.
Law experts tear the rigged justice system apart then turn the page on the ‘bullshit’ of rigged elections
…remember to forget however the proof election wasn’t rigged was WaPo and NYT were not reporting on the rigging. WaPo and NYT are not reporting the justice system is rigged but pay no attention because law expert, therefore not bullshit.
imTay - did it ever occur to you that Putin is a Geo-political menace? Tied up in the globalist war machine? It's not black and white, is it?
So they reported on the dominion hearsay case but not the actual trial in atlanta
They didnt bring keith schiller up who would have proven that there was an encounter
Sounds like a plan if all Trump's lawyers are going to do is shoot their mouths off.
But a competent lawyer will want to carefully review the record, including pre-trial motions/rulings and the trial transcripts and post-trial motions/rulings, to find any reversible error. That takes time.
Younger schmuger!
CJ John Roberts, sua sponte and with no pleadings filed, should just issue an order next week reversing and dismissing this NY criminal case against Trump.
Since the Left ignores the rule of law, conservatives might as well too. Forget about procedure, precedent and the constitution as the Left sure did.
Yes but he wont hes like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs
Had he done his duty in texas vs us ww wouldnt be here 300,000 ukrainians and 1200 israelis would still be alive
Dave Begley: "Agree in substance with Tom.
GOP needs to go after all these Dems with the same vigor and passion they went after Trump and all his people.
Two can play this game."
LOL
We will be lucky if only 50% of the GOP is working hand in glove with the dems behind the scenes as we speak to set up a Trump removal from the ticket at the convention.
Recall it was alot more than that, republicans helping dems, that supported the dems on the Russia Russia Russia collsion hoax/hoax dossier lies to ensure Trump could not follow thru on any campaign promises with the threat of faked up impeachment and imprisonment hanging over him from even before he took the oath of office.
With the notable exception of Devin Nunes...who was sidelined off the leadership role of the HSCI immediately by Paul Ryan working with the dems after that hack Burr hand delivered control of the SSCI to minority leader Mark Warner under McConnell direction.
In fact, none of what has occurred against Trump since 2015 would have been remotely possible without large scale republican support of New Soviet Democratical efforts.
And it continues to this very day.
The republicans as a whole, few exceptions, will do nothing to fight back against this systems wide Sovietization of our nation.
Nothing.
Begley: "CJ John Roberts, sua sponte and with no pleadings filed, should just issue an order next week reversing and dismissing this NY criminal case against Trump."
Stop depending on Roberts. He is one of the biggest parts of the problem.
The whole point of these various exercises is to keep Trump's mouth shut. Trump, since he was president for four years, has a good idea where the bodies are buried and doesn't seem to care about keeping it secret. He has to be silenced, lest he reveal anything. The first impeachment came about because Trump was doing the ol' Columbo "one more question" routine about the ongoing corruption in Ukraine. Biden and his family were only some of the grifters in on that action. Why do you think the Bidens and the rest of the government apparatus are so apoplectic about Trump retaining archival records? None of it is about national security - the nation's security isn't preserved by allowing deep state actors to keep their actions from public view.
It's also why Judge Merchan imposed gag orders and why Jack Smith keeps asking for more gag orders. I am guessing Trump has been threatened privately ever since he came down the escalator in 2015. So far, he's acquiesced, but the deep state actors can't take the chance he will stay silent. At some point, the public will get to know about these things, but for the current actors it would be better if all is revealed in 60-70 years, long after the current actors have left the scene, for reasons of national security, of course. Meanwhile, our resident trolls clap like sea lions at the zoo over every depredation the Merchans and Weissmanns send forth and call it justice.
If I am reading Dersh correctly, what he is implying is that the NY courts will stonewall the request for a speedier schedule and the political hypocrisy of that will make it easier to get a federal court to take up the case.
@Yancey, I read it that way too. And that’s what I think is wrong with your next comment. Tactically speaking, if you take the case directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing Appellate courts, you run the risk that the Court could tell Trump’s legal team that they have to go through the normal appeals process, at which point the Appellate courts would have the whip hand. But if Trump’s legal team does not get satisfaction from the Appellate courts then they have that much stronger a case for the Supremes to take it up.
That’s my interpretation, but I am not a lawyer (much less a lawyer at Dershowitz‘s level).
"What form of federal jurisdiction are you envisioning? Do we need to talk about habeas corpus and the Younger doctrine? Or are you referring to the Supreme Court?"
I am not envisioning anything other than a federal court with a judge, even one in Hawaii, issuing an order overturning the verdict. The rules of federal court procedure don't really apply any longer since the Left stop following them a long time ago.
Big Mike,
Yeah, you are probably correct and that is likely what SCOTUS would do. The GOP likes to play by the rules even though it is Calvinball.
Never-Biden Never-Putin: "imTay - did it ever occur to you that Putin is a Geo-political menace?"
LOL
Where, exactly? With what level of force projection power?
The russkis could barely keep a couple squadrons of aircraft operating in Syria with their GDP that is only 3/4 that of...Italy!
Boulder Brainchild "analysis" gets worse, naturally:
Never-Biden Never-Putin: "Tied up in the globalist war machine?"
Double LOL
The original Trump plan was to leverage Russia against the ChiComs to create a total economic/military squeeze against the only true external long term existential threat against the US (the New Soviet Democraticals are the existential internal threat): China.
The "globalist plan" was and is, the opposite of that!
It has, for decades, been to surround Russia with color revolutions in the bordering states, then destabilize russia, overthrow Moscow control and break up the russkis into little pieces so as to control resoueces and political control.
See Michael McFaul.
And the ChiComs know what a disaster that would be for them so what do we have now?
The ChiComs, Iran (having signed hundreds of billions of dollars in future deals) and North Korea trading for natural resources from russia, which they have in msssive abundance, for advanced systems while the russkis completed improving and expanding their surprisingly robust armaments production capabilities making them sanctions resistant.
Not a lawyer but have listened to Dershowitz on podcasts, etc.
He is a sane liberal.
Trump should have paid him whatever it took to be on his team.
In this case there are legal and political angles, but not sure Dersh knows the political part...
Drago -
Sorry but Imtay - I presume - like many Trump adorationists - love to think the Putin is some sort of innocent player.
LOL. Drago - accusing me of things never said- That seems to be your trademark. Asshole.
Suppose a person is convicted of something that is a crime in that state, but nowhere else. Does that make that person a convicted felon everywhere, or just in that state?
We say nothing of the kind but yoh do need to understand the adversary does anybody in military or intelligence high command dos?
his antics in court were some kind of three dimensional chess
Don't you know that this whole thing is simultaneously the worst outrage in the history of the country and Trump playing 5-D chess to garner electoral support that will lead to his victory in a landslide?
Not bad. Mark Levin offers advice on how to get to the SCOTUS quickly via extraordinary writ. Trump's lawyers could probably do both.
Comments revealing an ugliness we already knew about. Sadly a lot of loud Americans have no respect for the rule of law.
A group of 12 people, agreed to by his lawyers, found Trump guilty on all 34 counts after his highly paid legal team made their case.. Of course, Trump will moan and whine — after all, he lost. But the reality is that he is guilty under the law. There will be those who follow him irrespective of whatever he does. That is their right. But for others, now he is officially a felon.
Looking forward to the appeal — where hopefully, he will testify in a court of law.
Alan D...Bravo.
Cheers all!
@Cook:
Seems to me , if Trump can point to multiple cases of reversible error as a matter of established constitutional law he doesn't have to argue about anything being his case being"rigged".
Why impute bad motives, when you can argue the law before an appellate court whose function is to rule on the law, not on subjective claims of impropriety? If the appellate court has to address the legal issues in its decision, they will really squirm if they are seen ignoring or explaining away prior US Supreme Court decisions. And if they do , that lays the grounds for a "Rocket Docket" appeal to the Supremes.
"It's also why Judge Merchan imposed gag orders and why Jack Smith keeps asking for more gag orders."
Transparency is the enemy of Democrats. They prefer to operate in the dark without Trump exposing their corruption to public view.
Menace to what? As Drago points out, he can't project power much beyond his own borders. The real menace of Putin is that he has stopped the West from raping Russia's natural resources. Europe's economic future is dismal indeed if they don't somehow manage to overthrow Putin and regain access to Russia's natural resources at bargain prices by installing a US puppet there. That's the real "menace" of Putin, he exists. We have forced Russia to militarize, and we forced Putin into China's arms, and we have forced China into Putin's arms. We have caused Russia to ignore our sanctions against North Korea, because, well, what are we going to do? Sanction them more? We have caused China to seek sanction proof trade routes out of the reach of US sea power, and they have a long shared border with both Russia and North Korea. We have engaged in the same kind of overreach that led to the downfall of the Third Reich, and Imperial Japan, and oh BTW, the USSR.
I liked the way that the Germans in the book Das Boot referred to the allies in WWII, "the gentlemen of the other firm." If we conducted our foreign policy with a little more humility, and a little more grace and empathy, a *lot* of people would be alive today who are now rotting in graves. Including 50K young Americans who died in Viet Nam, men who were the best of us, who could have lived out happy, productive lives.
Courts are staffed by judges.
Judges are government workers.
Government workers are slow pokes and lazy.
The Supreme Court is the laziest. They don’t hear that many cases.
There is no quick legal solution to this case.
If Trump wanted to force the issue, he could just leave New York and skip the sentencing.
Stay out of New York. The Colombian Judge and Fat Alvin would then have to request assistance from other states.
imtay - I suggest you fly your Putin flag right next to your Trump flag. Good luck.
@Carla Zaz says: "Maybe the problem is not every other person in government and society; maybe the problem is just one person....
'Every other person', Carla? Every single other person? Or just the people that you count as members of 'Our Democracy? And, if not 'Every other person', then.... what about the rest of the people - what about them, Carla? Are they people, this other half of the country? Do you find them..... deplorable?
Dershowitz is a friend of democracy, and a progressive burden for Democrazis.
“Meanwhile the Supreme Court and Cannon slow walks their decision on Trump related cases.”
Ha! Ha! Ha!
The US Supreme Court has actually greatly expedited the case, because of its political nature. As for the FL documents case, Jay Bratt and the prosecution were trying to fast track their case, while dragging their feet as to required Brady document etc production. Normally, a case with this many supposedly classified documents wouldn’t be going to trial before 2025, maybe even 2026. They were trying to hit a self imposed (for political reasons) March, then May, election year target. Bratt took a lot of short cuts, such as assuming that the documents contained true National security information, that Trump hadn’t declassified, that the copies he had weren’t his, but belonged to the govt, etc. Bratt then got everything either classified, or hidden by a secrecy order. None of it is that clear cut legally, and it’s going to take some time to work through all of it. Meanwhile, the case is collapsing as more and more of it is exposed by the judge and defendants.
It looks very much like this case follows on from the attacks on Trump by the same FBI and DOJ organizations that created RussiaGate, illegally obtained FISA warrants to electronically surveil Trump and his inner circle, even after he was in the WH, put together the Mueller investigation, etc. That’s Jay Bratt’s day job - as the branch chief of the DOJ’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Branch (CECB), that continues to work closely with the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division (CD), where Peter Strzok was a branch chief and in charge of the Midyear Exam (Clinton email) and Crossfire Hurricane (Trump RussiaGate) investigations.
It turns out that the entire case was initiated early in FJB’s (stolen) term of office, when AG Garland and the FJB WH worked together to set the case up. NARA was given WH orders to fully cooperate with the FBI, which, in this case meant doing what they were told to do by CECB chief Bratt. So, NARA requested documents from Trump (that he still contends they have no right to). When he didn’t respond quickly enough, NARA (probably illegally) submitted a criminal referral to the DOJ. They (Bratt) issued a subpoena for the docs, then refused requests for additional time and/or rolling discovery. Then used the contrived failure to respond quickly enough as justification for the MAL search warrant, which the FBI agents involved completely ignored, when they seized 100k items from Trump, instead of the authorized roughly 100 documents marked as classified in the search warrant. Oh, and a week ago, turns out, they snuck a Shoot to Kill authorization into the search warrant. Meanwhile, it just came out that there had been two grand juries - the legal one in FL, and an illegal one in DC. The prosecution had tried to hide the grand jury testimony behind the case by only disclosing the FL testimony. But the DC case was only transferred to the FL grand jury a couple weeks before the indictment. Bratt got caught trying to hide the many months of testimony heard by the DC grand jury.
The corruption of the FL case against Trump is like an onion, that is slowly being peeled, and it stinks more with every layer peeled off. No wonder they wanted to go to trial in March so badly. If they could rush the defendants, as they were able to do with many of the J6 trials, they could cover up their own misfeasance, malfeasance, and perfidy.
maybe the problem is just one person
The Democratic/dictatorial duality, particularly with a simple majority.
The piece that seems to be being glossed over is that the sentencing hearing is scheduled for 3 days before the Republican convention, where Trump is expected to be nominated. In order to appeal the judgement, Trump will likely have to promise to remain in NY state, and maybe even NYC, throughout the appeal, which will likely not be heard until well after the election. That, of course, means no mega MAGA rallies in swing states throughout the election campaign. He won’t even be allowed to accept the nomination in person. Talk about LawFare election interference!!
given the stakes, the conduct of this trial, and the fact that the defendant is a candidate for the highest office in the land, there is a reasonably good chance SCOTUS would take the case on an expedited basis.
I have no faith that Roberts will allow this. I’m not even certain he would allow the case inside the door if it had progressed up the appeals chain in the usual sequence. I think he is paralyzed by fear of another Bush vs. Gore case undermining their precious “legitimacy.”
"It's also why Judge Merchan imposed gag orders and why Jack Smith keeps asking for more gag orders."
“Transparency is the enemy of Democrats. They prefer to operate in the dark without Trump exposing their corruption to public view.”
That’s exactly what is unraveling right now with the FL documents case. The magistrate, then the judge, naively issued gag orders and the like. Judge Cannon is now methodically going through the various secrecy orders in the case, and significantly cutting them back. One of their justifications was the personal security of the people involved. Cannon last week rejected Bratt’s motion to keep documents from the public, on those grounds, because the names of the FBI and DOJ people involved had been redacted.
10:24 AM - Carla Zaz warns about battling a strawman.
10:42 AM - Carla Zaz sets up a straw man and attacks it with fury.
R Cook said: "Hahaha! Are you referring to Donald's friend Putin? That guy? And what about Donald's pal Kim Jong Un? Like likes like! Birds of a feather, and all that! Hahaha!"
Cookie, have you ever negotiated anything in your life? You don't call your adversary every name in the book if you want to reach an agreement. Have you ever thought of that in that vein? Obviously not. Trump's style is to warm up to these people so he can reach common ground.
It doesn't surprise you do not recognize this.
“A group of 12 people, agreed to by his lawyers, found Trump guilty on all 34 counts after his highly paid legal team made their case.. Of course, Trump will moan and whine — after all, he lost. But the reality is that he is guilty under the law. There will be those who follow him irrespective of whatever he does. That is their right. But for others, now he is officially a felon.”
Not the way that jury selection works. Instead, in real life, you start with a potential slate of jurors. They can be rejected for cause or with a peremptory challenge by either side. Then, as potential jurors are eliminated, they are replaced. The process continues until a sufficient number of jurors remain. Elimination For Cause is completely at the discretion of the judge. His decisions there are typically unreviewable. Likely he rejected very few for Cause that Bragg wanted (what about the two attorneys in the jury? - they are routinely excluded in criminal cases). And each side has a fixed number of peremptory challenges. When they are gone, they are gone. So, no, the defendants didn’t agree on the jury. They just ran out of peremptory challenges. Possibly making this more egregious, there have been allegations that the prosecution helped pick the jury pool. Essentially stacking the deck.
“@Yancey, I read it that way too. And that’s what I think is wrong with your next comment. Tactically speaking, if you take the case directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing Appellate courts, you run the risk that the Court could tell Trump’s legal team that they have to go through the normal appeals process, at which point the Appellate courts would have the whip hand. But if Trump’s legal team does not get satisfaction from the Appellate courts then they have that much stronger a case for the Supremes to take it up.”
Watch the judge overreach here, and impose a no-travel outside NY order.
Slightly tweaking my previous paragraph to make culpability more apparent:
“It turns out that the entire case was initiated early in FJB’s (stolen) term of office, when AG Garland and the FJB WH worked together to set the case up. NARA was given WH orders to fully cooperate with the FBI, which, in this case meant doing what they were told to do by CECB chief Bratt. So, NARA/FBI/Bratt requested documents from Trump (that he still contends they have no right to), that the DOJ/FBI did not have probable cause to request. When Trump didn’t respond quickly enough, NARA/FBI/Bratt (probably illegally) submitted a criminal referral to the DOJ/Bratt. They (Bratt) issued a subpoena for the docs, then refused requests for additional time and/or rolling discovery. Then used their contrived failure to respond quickly enough as justification for the MAL search warrant, which the FBI (CD) agents involved completely ignored, when they seized 100k items from Trump, instead of the authorized roughly 100 documents marked as classified in the search warrant. Oh, and a week ago, we found out, that Bratt had snuck a Shoot to Kill (Trump and his Secret Service detail) authorization into his search warrant. Meanwhile, it just came out that there had been two grand juries - the legal one in FL, and an illegal one in DC. The prosecution had tried to hide the grand jury testimony behind the case by only disclosing the FL testimony. But the DC case was only transferred to the FL grand jury a couple weeks before the indictment. Bratt got caught trying to hide the many months of testimony heard by the DC grand jury.”
Trump in 2016: “She [Hillary] shouldn’t be allowed to run...If she wins, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis. In that situation, we could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and, ultimately, a criminal trial. It would grind government to a halt.”
“I don't think a push for haste is going to work as well in the media as Trump supporters as they think. At some point it comes offbas desperation.”
Haste might be the best legal strategy but it certainly isn’t the best political one. Ideally this travesty isn’t resolved till about, oh, October 15th. The rigged-trial narrative is only going to grow in the consciousness of the electorate. It’s a kind of auto-campaign in itself.
"A group of 12 people, agreed to by his lawyers"
LOL, that's Rich! What choice did they have but to agree to those 12. Why, Rich, did you and other not support moving the trial out of New York City into upstate New York where the jury pool wouldn't have been 90% anti-Trump? You got an answer to question, Rich? Why oppose a change in venue if the case was so iron-clad solid? An authentic supporter of these charges should have been willing to bend over backwards to make sure any verdict would be accepted as legitimate. Instead, what we get from people like you is criticizing the fact that the documents case wasn't assigned to the D.C. district court and are still demanding that it be moved.
Boulder Idiot: "LOL. Drago - accusing me of things never said- That seems to be your trademark. Asshole."
LOL
You said this dummy:
Blogger Never-Biden Never-Putin: "imTay - did it ever occur to you that Putin is a Geo-political menace? Tied up in the globalist war machine?"
Wrong on both counts.
Which I explicitly addressed.
Unsurprisingly, you know far less regarding international affairs than you do national affairs.
Blogger Never-Biden Never-Putin: "imtay - I suggest you fly your Putin flag right next to your Trump flag. Good luck."
Rachel Maddow could not have said it better.
“Merchan's ruling on the scope of allowable testimony by Brad Smith, gutting his value as a defense witness, is eminently reversible. And it is not the only one.”
Maybe as egregious, the indictment didn’t properly lay out the elements of the crime, just that Trump had allegedly attempted to commit some, unnamed, other crime. Then, the jury instructions. Usually, they serve as a road map of what the prosecution has to prove, typically beyond a reasonable doubt. Not here. They were left to the last minute, until the defendant could not counter the charges with evidence. The prosecution was able to flesh out the missing pieces in their case, in their 4 hours of closing arguments, after the defense had finished their case and their oral arguments (an anomaly of NY law - most other states let the defense have their oral arguments AFTER the prosecution).
One of the requirements of Due Process is that of Notice. The defendant must know that his conduct is arguably criminal before he engages In that conduct. Not after his attorneys have finished their closing arguments. At a minimum, he must also be put on notice by the inditement of the charged offense. The notice must be sufficiently clear, that he has no question of the charges he faces. And not find out after his attorneys have completed their closing arguments.
Due Process is a federal requirement, applicable to the federal government with the 5th Amdt, and to the states with § 1 of the 14th Amdt. This is not really a state law question, and indeed, state courts are likely to just muddy the water.
I am going to put on my Columbo hat and try to prove to you that the Trump conviction is not justice. I will present hypotheticals to establish a basis for conviction in a general case, and then compare it to Trump’s specific case. Think of it as a rubric a teacher establishes before grading papers; or as establishing a level of statistical significance before analyzing a dataset.
There are no wrong answers; the goal is to calibrate your justice meter.
Scenario One: You are a juror in the Colonel Mustard murder trial. The only evidence is three witness statements:
George Washington: Colonel Mustard; Wrench; Conservatory
Mother Teresa: Colonel Mustard; Pistol; Hallway
Mr. Spock: Colonel Mustard; Candlestick; Study
Would you vote to convict Colonel Mustard?
Scenario Two: You are an observer of the Colonel Mustard murder trial; the testimony is as above. The jury has reached a guilty verdict. The four Patriotic Americans cite George Washington’s testimony as the basis for their reasoning. Similarly, the four Catholics rely on Mother Teresa’s literal sainthood. The four Trekkies separate their middle and ring fingers to form an odd looking “V” when asked why they voted guilty.
As an observer, is this ruling just?
Scenario Three:
Colonel Mustard stands accused by the same three witnesses. They agree that the crime occurred in the library and that rope was the weapon. Their statements are:
George Washington: Colonel Mustard committed murder by hanging the victim with the rope.
Mother Teresa: Colonel Mustard kidnapped the victim by tying him to a chair with the rope.
Mr. Spock: Colonel Mustard assaulted the victim, lashing him with the rope until he was unconscious.
Is Colonel Mustard guilty?
Now to the real world:
A portion of the Judge Merchan’s jury instructions is below:
“Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following unlawful means: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.”
How do those instructions comport with your vision of justice?
If you literally substitute the words “harmed the victim” for “conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means” and aligned the crimes in Scenario 3 the result is:
“Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant harmed the victim, you need not be unanimous as to what occurred. In determining whether the defendant harmed the victim, you may consider the following: (1) murder; (2) kidnapping; or (3) assault.”
I don’t see how you can assert that this conviction was justified in any sense.
Caveat:
“Everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler” -attributed to Albert Einstein
Coda: (the obligatory “A Man for All Seasons” quote):
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
I think he is paralyzed by fear of another Bush vs. Gore case undermining their precious “legitimacy.”
Maybe. The Democrats' recent attacks on the Court suggest battlefield prep for an ultimate USSC decision throwing out all the unConstitutional reversible errors.
There is also a conspiracy theory, that is as plausible as all the others that came true, of blackmail of Roberts about his children's adoption.
Why the Obamacare decision ?
If a NY Appeals Court invalidates the decision based only on improper admission of prejudicial testimony won't they simply retry the case?
For example:
"The Manhattan district attorney’s office said it intends to retry Weinstein, and at least one of his accusers said through her lawyer that she would testify again."
Instant research shows at least two exceptions to the Younger Doctrine as explained here:https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/our-federalism-the-younger-abstention-doctrine/
I cannot imagine why at least one or more do not apply to this kangaroo court.
It is a bit of a read, but good job MartyH.
"A group of 12 people, agreed to by his lawyers" - Rich
"Without evidence, Rich make a false statement, but the content of which is supported by 95% of the MediaMorons™ -- these are the facts that prove it was a fair trial."
Tell me that Rich knows nothing about jury selection processes without telling me that Rich knows nothing about jury selection processes. Or, conversely, it could be possible that he is just lying again to advance his opinions, none of which are grounded in fact.
“Meanwhile the Supreme Court and Cannon slow walks their decision on Trump related cases.”
As I said above, it’s peeling the onion, and every layer stinks more.
Brady requires that the prosecution divulge to defendants everything that they are aware of that affects the case, or might be exonerating. Sounds pretty broad. But the federal government is massive with over 2 million employees of one type or another. So Brady doesn’t require asking all >2 million employees about potentially exonerating evidence. Instead, it has been limited to just those employees and agencies directly involved in the underlying investigation. The defendants wanted to ask NARA about their part in it. Nope said the judge. They were just doing their thing. But then the meetings between AG Garland and the FJB WH came out, and the WH order for NARA to fully comply with the FBI/DOJ/Bratt. The relevance is that if the DOJ/Bratt couldn’t make a request of Trump because they had no probable cause, they can’t get around it by have NARA make the request for them, when NARA is acting as their alter ego. Similar, if NARA was not authorized to make criminal referrals, or did so in response to a request by FBI/Bratt, there were no legal grounds for Bratt’s subpoena for the documents. Until this all came out, NARA was shielded from Brady etc) requirements. But with that background information now in hand, the judge has essentially told Bratt that NARA must provide relevant information to the defendants, because NARA was part of the investigation. That is likely to take at least a couple months. If, as suspected, communications between NARA and FBI/Bratt show up, as a result, that could taint the entire investigation, possibly going so far as making the results of the MAL raid inadmissible.
If the conviction is overturned at some point in the appeal process, it is quite possible that they would release Trump from Riker's and try him again, just with different set of improper charges and rulings. Daniels the pornwhore™ and Cohen the convicted liar might be able to testify a little differently and have no fear of prosecution for perjury as this is NY.
The evening after the verdict, I sent this email to the NYC tourism bureau at info@iloveny.com:
Fifty percent or more of this country is saying fuck NY and its lawfare against Trump. This Brooklyn-born senior will never spend a single dollar in NY. You should all burn in Hell.
(I took it easy on them) While the rest of the country descends into a deeper Biden Recession, it is my wish and prayer that NYC suffers a Depression due to its anti-business stances, its spending on illegals, and its heinous behaviors in lawfare against the 45th and soon-to-be 47th President of the United States of America.
Good link, Marcus- the exception for bad faith and blatantly unconstitutional application of law seem to completely appropriate here- it is no accident that the case was pursued and supported by foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Trump partisans- the very definition of bad faith.
Leland said...
"Blogger imTay said...
Rich is now in the phase of just throwing crap against the wall.
No. Rich has never been in any other phase. He's a monkey doing what monkey's do."
I'd be very surprised if he was actually a laywer. He's got the logic and reasoning of a 10 year old girl.
R Cook said: "Hahaha! Are you referring to Donald's friend Putin? That guy? And what about Donald's pal Kim Jong Un? Like likes like! Birds of a feather, and all that! Hahaha!"
This is beneath you Robert. You are not this stupid.
Maybe sloppy to say a jury is agreed to by the two sides' lawyers but they can make as many challenges for cause as they want. If they choose not to challenge a prospective juror for cause the implication is that they have not cause to challenge that juror. Just like every other criminal trial. Trump could also have waived his right to a jury on the theory that a judge decision is easier to overturn for documented errors than an opaque jury verdict. But his lawyers were holding out for a hung jury.
Rich said...
Comments revealing an ugliness we already knew about. Sadly a lot of loud Americans have no respect for the rule of law.
A group of 12 people, agreed to by his lawyers, found Trump guilty on all 34 counts after his highly paid legal team made their case.. Of course, Trump will moan and whine — after all, he lost. But the reality is that he is guilty under the law. There will be those who follow him irrespective of whatever he does. That is their right. But for others, now he is officially a felon.
Looking forward to the appeal — where hopefully, he will testify in a court of law.
You know that Trump's lawyers asked for a change of venue.
You are just a dishonest evil person.
Please tell everyone around you you support this court case so we can keep track of you. We never want to make the mistake of trusting a fascist in a free society.
I suspected that this case would be a huge strategic blunder for the Biden campaign, and looks like I was right. Trump got a bump in the polls with the guilty verdict, and a huge bump in fund raising. Meanwhile, Biden's polls are still in the cellar. I would like to hear what James Carville has to say.
So, Achilles: Trump cheats on his pregnant third wife in multiple ways, then commits crimes to cover up during his presidential campaign. Not dishonest or evil at all. Rich expresses and opinion on the Trump trial. DISHONEST EVIL PERSON. Got it.
A very real danger here is states that will try to disqualify Trump as a felon from being on the ballot.
A serious error by the prosecution was never specifying the felony crime Trump was guilty of, never even trying to prove that crime, when the records tampering only became felonies in the context of the big felony. If it was "interfering with an election" then every single politician ever who bought a new suit or whose wife lost weight was "interfering" by looking nice.
It is also my understanding that NDA for nuisance lawsuits are not illegal.
Finally, since it was payment to Cohen it WAS legal services. They never proved that there was some other category it should have been under. It was also his own money, not campaign $.
Readering said...
Maybe sloppy to say a jury is agreed to by the two sides' lawyers but they can make as many challenges for cause as they want. If they choose not to challenge a prospective juror for cause the implication is that they have not cause to challenge that juror. Just like every other criminal trial. Trump could also have waived his right to a jury on the theory that a judge decision is easier to overturn for documented errors than an opaque jury verdict. But his lawyers were holding out for a hung jury.
Another dishonest scumbag.
Please identify yourself to everyone around you. We don't want you people slinking off to attack us again later.
Michael K said...
I think he is paralyzed by fear of another Bush vs. Gore case undermining their precious “legitimacy.”
Maybe. The Democrats' recent attacks on the Court suggest battlefield prep for an ultimate USSC decision throwing out all the unConstitutional reversible errors.
There is also a conspiracy theory, that is as plausible as all the others that came true, of blackmail of Roberts about his children's adoption.
Why the Obamacare decision ?
I don't think they had to blackmail him. He is a Bush/Romney Republican heart and soul. They are just democrats with masks. There is no real difference between Roberts and Kagan.
According to Trump Humper Drago - Putin is NOT a menace. Got it.
Navalny would disagree - but you go with that - little Trump Humper Lawrence O'Donnell.
More blather from Achilles.
Boulder Idiot-Never-Biden Never-Putin: "According to Trump Humper Drago - Putin is NOT a menace. Got it.
Navalny would disagree - but you go with that - little Trump Humper Lawrence O'Donnell."
Putin is not even close to the "menace" the ChiComs are, which was my entire point.
As difficult as it is to believe, you are embarrassing yourself even more than usual.
"A very real danger here is states that will try to disqualify Trump as a felon from being on the ballot."
I'm curious how that might work. The Constitution lists these requirements:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
If the Constitution does not allow for disqualification due to status as a felon, how might states add that requirement? Can individual states unilaterally amend the Constitution? And wouldn't restricting ballot access be interfering in an election?
The best argument the left has today is "Trump's lawyers agreed to the jurors"? Trump's lawyers requested a directed verdict for their client, which means they didn't trust the jurors. The case will be overturned on appeal. You haven't an argument to justify this travesty.
I wonder if Dershowitz can or will explain--as a lawyer--why and how the trial and/or the jury's verdict was rigged?
It has been explained to you numerous times on this board. Nobody should have to explain it to you again.
You choose to be blind. So be it.
If the Constitution does not allow for disqualification due to status as a felon, how might states add that requirement? Can individual states unilaterally amend the Constitution? And wouldn't restricting ballot access be interfering in an election?
It's absolutely unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean that they won't try it. My fear is that they'll do it close to the election, so that by the time the courts sort it out, ballots have already been printed and mailed off. The goal will be to do it, and then dare SCOTUS to do anything about it. You can't redo an election, SCOTUS will be loath to kick the decision over to state legislatures, and those same legislatures will be hesitant to take responsibility for solving the issue.
Was the case against Michael Cohen for exactly the same crime also “rigged?” Or does Cohen not deserve the kind of consideration and imagined privileges afforded to our extra-special bestest client and most innocent of innocent victims Trump?
Maybe he can appeal to the judge on the basis of having super-human powers of goodness that immunize him against criminal conduct in a way that no other human is protected - and for all time no matter what. Trump has never sinned, never jaywalked, never returned a book to the library late and never placed his own self interest and political interests above the law. His nationalism is just that special and apolitical.
You know, there are things even I’d prefer and suspect a Trump presidency could be more effective at than the alternative. Its care for rule of law - apart from a heavy hand against looting/rioting, mass immigration and the Mid-East menace in a generalized sense - is not one of them.
Clinton was disbarred, Trump has been convicted. Can we stop needing political heroes and just accept that people who do wrong face the consequences no matter how ardently their supporters want to believe in their “causes?” If the movements they purport to represent are so important why can’t someone else replace them when it comes to bad leadership or bad examples? Why do we need heroes and messiahs so badly? Are people incapable of guiding effective leadership and change outside of a cult of personality?
"Maybe sloppy to say a jury is agreed to by the two sides' lawyers but they can make as many challenges for cause as they want. If they choose not to challenge a prospective juror for cause the implication is that they have not cause to challenge that juror. Just like every other criminal trial. Trump could also have waived his right to a jury on the theory that a judge decision is easier to overturn for documented errors than an opaque jury verdict. But his lawyers were holding out for a hung jury."
LOL! To get a juror tossed for cause requires the judge to accept the challenge, so that doesn't work to support the claim it was 12 jurors Trump's lawyers agree to. Do you people even think through the things you write here? Trump's lawyers challenged lots of potential jurors for cause, Merchan denied enough of them that Trump's lawyers ran out of peremptory challenges pretty quickly in the process.
"Do you people even think through the things you write here?"
If they believed Trump was actually guilty, they'd have been okay with a trial in a heavily conservative location, right? What- no they wouldn't? Why not?
YW: one uses for challenges in part to create record for appeal.
Leland: Directed verdict motion pretty much standard in all cases. In law school mock trial competitions, they are required even though it is also required that they be denied.
Howard Roark faces 2 trials in New York [The Fountainhead] in both self-represented
Trial 1 before judge - he loses for 'fraud' naked female statue in Temple
Trial 2 with jury - he is acquitted for blowing up building! he designed for design irregularities! by committee!
BTW he also designed and built.
blackmail of Roberts about his children's adoption.
=================
shirley they are adults by now!
Blogger hpudding said...
Was the case against Michael Cohen for exactly the same crime also “rigged?”
Cohen plead guilty to felony tax evasion. Trump was never charged with it. We learned during this trial that Cohen created a fraudulent invoice to embezzle $60,000 from his client, a felony in NYC, and the DA never charged him. So creating a fraudulent business record? Cohen was never tried, but he should have. What was the other crime? Althouse guessed you couldn’t do it after a conviction so prove her wrong. Give it a try.
Trump needs new material.
"Scam and rigged" — sounds similar to Trump's claims after his loss in 2020. How'd that work out for him.
"If they believed Trump was actually guilty, they'd have been okay with a trial in a heavily conservative location, right?"
I would have been pleased had the SDNY US Atty brought federal charges for this criminal conduct. It would have expanded the jury pool to following counties:
Bronx
Westchester
Rockland
Putnam
Orange
Dutchess
Sullivan
Older men who marry younger women live longer.
Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6690583/
Try that without balls and see how far you get and oblig. trust the science.
Drago TrumpSwab - According to you because the Chi Coms are a larger Menace- Putin gets a pass by you? Is there an offical Drago scale of menace we all need to study?
Idiot.
hpudding said...
Was the case against Michael Cohen for exactly the same crime also “rigged?” Or does Cohen not deserve the kind of consideration and imagined privileges afforded to our extra-special bestest client and most innocent of innocent victims Trump?
It was. Cohen was guilty of Perjury, Tax Evasion, Fraud, grand larceny and several other actual felonies and facing decades in prison.
The DOJ let him plea to a couple things that were not even crimes so they could get Trump.
Facing decades in prison the convicted perjurer and thief who stole from Trump decided to testify against Trump instead.
And the convicted perjurer admitted to lying to the jury in this case flat out. His entire testimony should have been stricken and he should have faced years in jail for that act alone.
Readering said...
More blather from Achilles.
I will be clear and direct for you then.
People like you worked for Lavrentiy Beria.
People like you will always be a threat to a free society.
What ws the actual felony?
"And the convicted perjurer admitted to lying to the jury in this case flat out. "
Would love to see the transcript where that happened.
Never-Biden Never-Putin: "Drago TrumpSwab - According to you because the Chi Coms are a larger Menace- Putin gets a pass by you? Is there an offical Drago scale of menace we all need to study?
Idiot."
LOL
Yes, there actually are "scales of menace"...as every single nation state and even individuals demonstrate right in front of you on a daily basis.
Its absolutely perfect that not only do you not see recognize that constant of human nature but that you compound the problem by missing so many obvious key facts.
You raise idiocy to an art form.
Achilles in USSR under Stalin people like both of us worked for Beria.
"YW: one uses for challenges in part to create record for appeal."
So what? They challenged almost all of the jurors that were seated, Merchan seated them anyway. Once they ran out of peremptory challenges, they got only the jury the prosecution and the judge agreed to.
Mark, please get a copy of the transcript and read it. I'll help you: it will be where Cohen admitted stealing money from Trump and from the client because he didn't get the bonus he thought he deserved. He lied, at the very least, by omission and the act of submitting a bill for services that was not truthful. I believe there is more as it is on the record that he committed perjury on the stand in HIS trial.
But you are known to fall for the left's bullshit.
Fall? Cookie is so Left-wing that even the modern Democrat Party, with all it's society-is-the-real-criminal approach to law and order, plus every social culture issue one can think of, plus gigantic state welfare schemes, is still not enough for him.
What's missing for Cookie is State ownership of the means of production.
Readering said...
"Achilles in USSR under Stalin people like both of us worked for Beria."
No. One of you would be in the camps.
Not you.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন