Missouri AG filing suit against the State of New York- Trump Trial

[~Hades~]

the tactic here for those desperately trying to defend trump has always been to flood the courts with bs lawsuits and cry when it doesn’t go his way.

How many lawyers got disbarred over the fake election claims? Giuliani and that kraken lady at least, pretty sure there were more.

“but blumpf reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee”


You completely avoiding the question and going straight to blumpf is the exact point I was making you fake lawyer muppet

[rampagefc77]

So, you are saying it's feasible that attacking a judge's daughter or violating gag orders would be recommended if you want to maintain a good relationship with a judge during a trial?


Do you even know what you are trying to argue or are you just throwing chit against the wall? LOL.

"Attacking" is an odd characterization. Pointing out that she was raking in millions for democrats and using the trial to personally enrich herself and boost trump's political opponents seems like it is a conflict of interest for the judge. Are we supposed to ignore that? Is that something that cannot be brought to the public's attention?

Meanwhile, Cohen and others were allowed to speak freely about anything they wanted and we allowed to trash Trump and make $$$ off of the trial as well. No gag orders.

But I'm sure that is OK with you...

[Cleveland33]

Funny, it was always common sense not to be disrespectful to a judge until it comes to Trump. If we replaced Trump with some random disrespectful teenager violating court orders, you would concur. You guys will give that orange clown a pass for anything, holy chit lol.

No it doesn't matter - the judge is supposed to be impartial.

[miscinbro]

“but blumpf reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee”


You completely avoiding the question and going straight to blumpf is the exact point I was making you fake lawyer muppet

What was the question?

[miscinbro]

No it doesn't matter - the judge is supposed to be impartial.

The jury determined if Trump was guilty. It’s the judge’s job now to determine the sentence. Given what Trump was convicted on, does it seem like a good idea to continue to try and undermine the judicial system and integrity of American institutions?

This would be like someone convicted of armed robbery spamming gangster rap videos at the judge 24/7 before sentencing.

[NYPat]

Funny, it was always common sense not to be disrespectful to a judge until it comes to Trump. If we replaced Trump with some random disrespectful teenager violating court orders, you would concur. You guys will give that orange clown a pass for anything, holy chit lol.

It's not just a pass... it's a vigorous defense and justification. Regardless.

[NYPat]

No it doesn't matter - the judge is supposed to be impartial.

Lmfao like Cannon right?

I should make a thread contrasting the "unfairness" levels of the NY trial vs the Cannon nonsense.

[benedetto27]

Here's the "Yale Law Professor" OP is citing.

Those claims come from the MeToo hysteria and f'in lol if you don't think Professors have always slept with students (who are very willing for good grades & to have a story to tell)

You wouldn't be slut shaming the free decisions made by liberated feminist women to explore their sexuality would you? That's a big no no in liberal world last time I checked (maybe I missed the latest NPC software update to know the correct position to hold to remain in the cult).

[miscinbro]

Those claims come from the MeToo hysteria and f'in lol if you don't think Professors have always slept with students (who are very willing for good grades & to have a story to tell)

You wouldn't be slut shaming the free decisions made by liberated feminist women to explore their sexuality would you? That's a big no no in liberal world last time I checked (maybe I missed the latest NPC software update to know the correct position to hold to remain in the cult).

1) it’s not true

2) it’s obviously true, it always happens

3) “whatabout”

Got your shtposting bases covered there

[Reichsfuhrer]

As a proud white American conservative, I respect rule of law and expect people to comply with our criminal justice system. It is totally fair and balanced. Unless the defendant is named Donald Trump. Then, the system is rigged! Lawfare!

[Anabolikka]

As NYPat would say:

"Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo"!!!

(Then kick his dad in the gunt)..

[SaltyDog920]

The Trump appeals thread





https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...hp?t=185367021

LOL at how shook Lionel Hutz is after you non confrontationally shared his quotes about the other thread.

[miscinbro]

LOL at how shook Lionel Hutz is after you non confrontationally shared his quotes about the other thread.

The thread I have not replied to since the 8th? And the very last reply to the entire thread was on the 17th?

But supposedly if I read that well enough it will explain his take on events that occurred well after his last post itt.

How about you explain to me how this gets NY v. Trump to the Supreme Court?

[Bushmaster]

LOL at how shook Lionel Hutz is after you non confrontationally shared his quotes about the other thread.

Finest legal mind on the entire misc!

[miscinbro]

Finest legal mind on the entire misc!

Howe about you explain it to me then.

[Bushmaster]

Howe about you explain it to me then.

I would much rather laugh at you.

[SaltyDog920]

The thread I have not replied to since the 8th? And the very last reply to the entire thread was on the 17th?

But supposedly if I read that well enough it will explain his take on events that occurred well after his last post itt.

How about you explain to me how this gets NY v. Trump to the Supreme Court?

I honestly don't care enough to read about any of this. I just find it comical how shook you get lol.

miscinbro
I didn’t chose sht, I didn’t see “your other thread.”

gachase21 The Trump appeals thread

miscinbro View Post
I’m not going to be clicking on that YouTube. Can you explain in your own words how the 6th Amendment was violated?

gachase21
no, I'm not qualified to. I like using citations of people that are qualified if possible.

There are arguments from 4 main players ITT.

If you are interested in what the counter arguments might be, you should consider listening to and reading them.

if you are not interested in the subject that much I really don't blame you for not gathering the information.


There are a few other heavy hitters that have chimed in- but it is a little repetitive and the ones I have posted here have more of the ear of the court.
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...hp?t=185367021

Followed by much more shook from Lionel Hutz...just don't care enough to post the quotes lol.

[miscinbro]

I would much rather laugh at you.

I honestly don't care enough to read about any of this. I just find it comical how shook you get lol.

This is very pathetic.

[SaltyDog920]

This is very pathetic.

More pathetic than "but I didunt see the thread11!!" followed by this:

miscinbro
I didn’t chose sht, I didn’t see “your other thread.”

gachase21 The Trump appeals thread

miscinbro View Post
I’m not going to be clicking on that YouTube. Can you explain in your own words how the 6th Amendment was violated?

[Phil9]

No it doesn't matter - the judge is supposed to be impartial.

The defendant is supposed to abide by gag orders too.

It's not just a pass... it's a vigorous defense and justification. Regardless.

Pretty hilarious he doesn't understand why a defendant shouldn't be blatantly disrespecting a judge during court proceedings. Does he realize people have gone to jail or been heavily fined over chit like that? Oh wait, it's Trump. Diffe(R)ent when he does it. If it was a black teenager, we would be hearing "thug" and "Cuff him."

[NitrogenWidget]

Any time the left sues or charges someone, it’s always 100% LEGIT.

Any time the right sues or charges someone, it’s always political grandstanding and points.

Thats weird right?

that's called mental illness.

and 100% accurate.

[miscinbro]

More pathetic than "but I didunt see the thread11!!" followed by this:

So your argument is that on the 8th OP had no idea what he was talking about and on the 21st he still can’t put it in his own words and you proudly have no idea either.

But my take is absolutely wrong and I can’t possibly be a lawyer.

Makes sense.

You all are like some purple-haired anti-gun nut talking about a machine gun’s clip putting out 5 million bullets per minute.

BTW - the 6th Amendment that’s cited in the quote you keep harping on about has nothing to do with the lawsuit in the OP. Though you wouldn’t know that - as you have stated.

[Stizzel]

Lmfao like Cannon right?

I should make a thread contrasting the "unfairness" levels of the NY trial vs the Cannon nonsense.

Omg please do it. Even if it means you have to request another mental health ban from embarrassing yourself

[NitrogenWidget]

So your argument is that on the 8th OP had no idea what he was talking about and on the 21st he still can’t put it in his own words and you proudly have no idea either.

But my take is absolutely wrong and I can’t possibly be a lawyer.

Makes sense.

You all are like some purple-haired anti-gun nut talking about a machine gun’s clip putting out 5 million bullets per minute.

BTW - the 6th Amendment that’s cited in the quote you keep harping on about has nothing to do with the lawsuit in the OP. Though you wouldn’t know that - as you have stated.

can you cry any harder?
holy chit.
SAD!

[miscinbro]

can you cry any harder?
holy chit.
SAD!

34 felonies. Desperate thread after desperate thread filled with imaginary stories about how it’s not true. Trump can go straight to the Supreme Court - they will make it right!

How? Who knows.

I make a couple posts blowing it all up and we witness the reaction.

And the best you all can do is say I’m crying about it? Absolutely pathetic.

[SaltyDog920]

34 felonies. Desperate thread after desperate thread filled with imaginary stories about how it’s not true. Trump can go straight to the Supreme Court - they will make it right!

How? Who knows.

I make a couple posts blowing it all up and we witness the reaction.

And the best you all can do is say I’m crying about it? Absolutely pathetic.

No-one:

Lionel Hutz: dRUmmmppphhhh2@@!!!

lol. By the way, I do believe you're a lawyer. It's not like it's some elite, high ranking profession. There's an over saturation of lawyers. When I was 20 I hired a lawyer for a driving/licensing case for myself. My mistake. This lawyer was late, repeatedly asked me for dates that I conveyed to him several times, dressed extremely sloppy, and his whole premise on the case was based on a mistaken understanding of the law. So yeah, I believe you're a lawyer. Come to think of it, maybe it was you that I hired.

[gachase21]

And you didn’t mention that in the OP? Didn’t mention it at all until I started poking obvious holes in all of this.

Sounds like desperate cope to me.

Not sure what "holes" poking you mean- the argument isn't that you can run for office and be immune. The argument is the conviction itself was unconstitutional.- based on the matters I posted in my appeals thread (and more to come in a min) and that unconstitutional potential conviction harms their state.



Here is a 2:45 second video- the last 1 min gets the gist

https://x.com/vivekgramaswamy/status...RG1NxPX-kIXHDg


The Missouri AG is working in direct contact and coordination with this team - there are 3 routes to Supreme Court before appeal - and nobody is trying to pretend that they aren't all longshot / but not impossible - they will try all 3


More than likely this ends up in the orca pals court, and then goes to scotus - but we will see.



I also caution - others - you might adamantly disagree with a few of the people. I posted here in the other threads view on Legal theory here, but as I said, before, these are people that have the ear/mindset of the current court and the justices.



Brb though - more significant developing news....

[TastyTheTreat]

Here's the "Yale Law Professor" OP is citing.






Political grandstanding anyways. No different than the Texas AG trying to bring a lawsuit against Pennsylvania in 2020 over the election. Which was quickly dismissed due to standing.






There is no law saying you can't be criminally charged and convicted during an election season, Einstein. Otherwise, people should just start all running for political office when they are in the midst of facing charges.

So you're saying they're committing political grandstanding against a political grandstanding trial?

[gachase21]

Untreated - one of the 3 scotus decisions so far today just hit the streets.







https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...3-370_i4dj.pdf

Reposting relevance here

Possible impact:

Did The Supreme Court Just Shift the Ground Under The Feet of New York and The Sham Trial of President Trump?

A defendant has the right to a unanimous jury find beyond a reasonable doubt as to any fact that increases his exposure to punishment. P.S. -- that doesn't apply to Jan 6 cases as suggested.

“[a] fact that increases” a defendant’s exposure to punishment, whether by triggering a higher maximum or minimum sentence, must “be submitted to a jury” and found unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.

This passage is found in the decision today by the Supreme Court in Erlingher v. United States, but this is merely the most recent pronouncement of a watershed ruling on the constitutional rights of defendants in criminal cases first announced in the Court’s 2000 decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey.

Since Apprendi the Court has invalidated a variety of sentencing procedures under state and federal law used to increase the sentences in criminal cases through minimizing or eliminating the role of the jury in rendering a unanimous verdict on facts necessary to impose longer sentences.

In Erlinger the defendant was convicted of being a felon-in-possession of a firearm, a rather “garden-variety” federal felony not dissimilar from the crime Hunter Biden was just convicted of.

But Erlingher had a lengthy criminal history — dating back 26 years — and as a result he was also charged under the “Armed Career Criminal Act.” That statute carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for recidivists convicted of illegally possessing a firearm when they have three prior state or federal convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses.

In Erlinger, the defendant was convicted of a common gun-crime for which the maximum sentence was 10 years. But the ACCA allegation, if proven true, would increase his sentence to a mandatory minimum of 15 years — a minimum that was 5 years longer than the maximum without the ACCA finding.

The application of the ACCA has undergone significant litigation over the past 20 years on the question of what crimes — particularly what state crimes in the 50 different states with all kinds of different state laws — fall within the federal statute’s reference to “crimes of violence” and to a lesser degree “serious drug offenses.” The definitions turn out to be much more difficult to apply in practice than might seem to be the case just looking at the phrases.

But the issue in Erlinger was who decides if there are three prior convictions that qualify under the ACCA? Historically, it has been an issue resolved by the trial judges after a jury returns a verdict of guilty on the gun charge. But following a long series of cases on this general topic going back to Apprendi, the Court concluded in Erlinger that the issue of how many prior “occasions” of criminal activity can only be determined from several factual questions bound up in the events and circumstances of each of those prior “occasions”. As such, whether or not ACCA is proven requires façtual findings, and such facts must be resolved unanimously by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and not by a judge as part of the sentencing process.




This is a “not all that controversial outcome” on this ACCA question given the path that the Court has followed on similar issues since Apprendi that involved decision-making by judges at sentencing that influence the sentence imposed. In fact, Erlingher has the unusual circumstance of both the Government and the Defendant agreeing that the sentencing court and appeals court were wrong, and the Supreme Court appointed “Amicus counsel” to take on the role typically performed by the Government in defending the outcome in the the Appeals Court. The DOJ and the defendant both believed this would be the correct outcome.

So, how does this impact the decision in Alvin Bragg’s NY state court prosecution of trump just finished up last month? Because is drives home in yet another context the need for a unanimous verdict from a jury on any fact that increases the potential maximum sentence that a defendant might face as a result of his conviction.

In the NY case, Trump was charged with “false business records” crime that is ordinarily a misdemeanor, punishable by less than 1 year. But that statute increases the potential maximum sentence to 4 years — a felony — if another fact is found to be true, i.e., the misdemeanor was committed with the “intent” to conceal another crime. The other crime as alleged by the Bragg was a violation of Sec. 17-152, conspiring to promote or prevent the election of any person by “unlawful means.” Bragg’s theory was that the false business records were intended to cover up this “conspiracy”.

In Erlinger the Court repeated what it first said in Apprendi — any fact that increases the potential maximum sentence for a defendant must be decided unanimously by a jury on a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard — the language I put at the very top here.

In the NY case, the existence of a second crime being concealed increased the maximum sentence from 1 year to 4 years. It is exactly the kind of “fact” that Apprendi was concerned with — a fact that increased Trump’s exposure from a misdemeanor to a felony.

Where the problems arose was from the decision by the trial judge to instruct the jury that they did not need to be unanimous as to the “unlawful means.” He gave them three options, told them that all they had to agree that one of the three options was proven, but they did not need to agree unanimously as to any one of the three — it was a “buffet” where they could all chose differently.

As a general proposition, I would say that a red flag should be flown high any time a judge in a criminal trial tells a jury that they need not be unanimous on any particular part of their verdict.

Without doing too much of a deep dive on the jury instructions in the NY case, those arguing that the Judge’s instructions were sufficient even without requiring unanimity on the “unlawful means” will argue the only requirement needed was that Trump “intended” to conceal the second crime — the conspiring to promote Trump by “unlawful means. Since it was the presence or absence of this “intent” that created the felony, that was all the jury needed to be unanimous on. They did not need to be unanimous on the “unlawul means” he “intended” to employ because he wasn’t charged with a crime for engaging in those those “unlawful means.” That’s as much as I’m going to attempt here.

Those who have challenged this instruction to the jury — including myself — have argued that the jury needed to decide more that simply that Trump “intended” to conspire because “conspiring” alone is not a crime.

“Conspiring to commit a crime” … is a crime.

So unless you have unanimity on the “crime” being conspired about, you don’t have a “criminal conspiracy” that makes the misdemeanor a felony. This confusion stems from a poorly drafted statute referring to “unlawful means” where what is actually being referenced is the “unlawful objective.”

Objective = murder.

Means = via gun, knife, hammer, suffocation, etc.

A jury can find a defendant guilty of murder without having to agree on what “means” was used to kill the victim.

The phrase “unlawful means” in the statute — based on the way the jury was instructed — is not a “means” as typically understood, but the criminal objective of the conspiracy — without which you don’t have a criminal conspiracy. The jury given 3 options and told they did not need to agree.

The decision in Erlinger — requiring that a unanimous jury decide the specifics of the prior crimes that might trigger the longer sentence under the ACCA statute — supports the view of the manner in which the misdemeanor becomes a felony under the NY statute as has been advanced in Trump’s favor.

Another dudes take -(this one is a lib)

Thread unroll

1. The SCOTUS today struck a blow to Trump's 34 guilty verdicts surviving appellate review. In order to find Trump guilty of violating Penal Law 175.10 the jury had to find certain "facts." Significantly, the jury had to find the following "facts": (1) That Cohen's paying Stormy

2. $130G constituted a willful violation of FECA's campaign contribution or expenditure limits; (2) That Cohen's filing a false tax return (after the election) constitutes a willful federal or knowing state or city tax law violation; or (3) That Cohen's filing false bank
3. documents in order to obtain the $130G constituted a violation of Penal Law 175.05. Without the jury making at least one of those "factual" findings, it would have been impossible for the jury to have convicted Trump of any of the 34 Penal Law 175.10 felonies.

4. Here's the Fifth (Due Process) & Sixth (Jury Trial) Amendment problem highlighted by the SCOTUS in its opinion today in Erlinger v. United States: Any "fact" that is necessary to establish a criminal defendant's guilt must be determined by a jury, unanimously, and beyond a
5. reasonable doubt. But, Judge Merchan instructed the jury that they need not unanimously agree on which of the three "fact-based" alternatives (set forth above) that the DA was relying upon to establish Trump's guilt. Under Judge Merchan's instructions, 4 jurors could have
6. found the "facts" necessary to establish one of the DA's theories; 4 jurors the "facts" necessary to establish a different theory; and 4 jurors the "facts" necessary to establish yet another one of the DA's multiple theories that were required to establish Trump's guilt.
7. In addition, Judge Merchan failed to instruct the jury that, with respect to each of the DA's "fact-based" theories they must apply the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof.
8. I have no doubt that if this case reaches the SCOTUS Trump's 34 Penal Law 175.10 felony convictions will be reversed likely by a unanimous opinion. The DA, however, could try and save the convictions by establishing that Judge Merchan's fundamental constitutional error was
9. harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e., that Judge Merchan's error was "small" and had "little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result." The constitutional rule regarding jury unanimity and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof in connection with "factual"
10. determinations applies to all criminal trials in federal and state courts. That means NY's appellate courts will have to apply this fundamental constitutional rule to Trump's appeal. Depending on what NY's appellate courts do, SCOTUS review may be unnecessary.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...248376696.html

[NitrogenWidget]

34 felonies. Desperate thread after desperate thread filled with imaginary stories about how it’s not true. Trump can go straight to the Supreme Court - they will make it right!

How? Who knows.

I make a couple posts blowing it all up and we witness the reaction.

And the best you all can do is say I’m crying about it? Absolutely pathetic.

huh. look at that.
you did cry harder.