Trump Now Banned by Law From Entering 37 Countries

[Twilight Hue]

The only thing it shows is that Trump didn't like the verdict and exercised his right to appeal.

Exactly why the appellate court is there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Exactly why the appellate court is there.

From there doesn't follow that he will win or lose.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I asked, "Is it possible for Trump to be convicted of a crime fairly? Is there any setting hypothetical or otherwise, where a jury gives Trump a guilty verdict and it is fair in your estimation?" That's a pretty skimpy answer.

Yes is an appropriate answer. What else do you want me to say?

You don't have to say it. His rights were not violated in this trial to anybody's knowledge, although an appellate court might find otherwise. If they do, it won't be for the reasons you cite - Trump doesn't know what second crimes were in the various juror's minds. The fact that you are so zealously promoting that as an objection even after having it explained to you why it's not a valid objection tells me that you don't really care about the law. You care about Trump.

Nope. That is not the only due process violation that occurred either.

You think Merchan should have recused himself for participating in the political process? Maybe Merchan voted for Biden as well. Is that also grounds for recusal in your mind?

No, but according to the NY Times, "political contributions of any kind are prohibited under state judicial ethics rules."

Ethics Panel Cautions Judge in Trump Trial Over Political Donations

Justice Juan M. Merchan, the judge overseeing Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan, donated modest amounts to Democratic groups in 2020.

www.nytimes.com

You have no right to that information. Would you be content if the jurors were all polled and gave their answers? Probably not.

I agree I have no right to it. But Trump does.

What's your objection there? Do you think that Trump wanting to campaign for president means that the trials should be delayed? If so, why? This is Trump's doing. If Trump had wanted this matter concluded in 2023, he could have asked for a speedy trial. Instead, he delayed things for as long as he could, which turned out to be the spring of an election year.

Yes, this case was delayed years then was rushed to get to court. Why are all of these cases happening within a year of the election?

No, you were told that prosecutors didn't think they had winnable cases.

Yes, the party of law and order.

And they can see that the Republicans are the opposite. Look at how outraged they are at Trump's conviction. Trump had a fair trial and was convicted by a jury of ordinary citizens acceptable to the prosecution. But Republicans ranging from Trump to congressional Republicans to people like you and Clizby simply won't accept the result, just like with the election. That's what Republicans are now.

Nope, we have reasonable objections that no one will even consider. I listed about 12 on the trial alone and no one responded to them at all. Do you think if Bragg had the same evidence against Biden he would have prosecuted him?

Why should we believe anything the dems and the media do anyway? They lied about the Steel dossier, lied about Hunters laptop, Lied about Trump taking the wheel of his car and insisting on going to the capital and they kept that from the Jan 6th committee, lied about Bidens confidential material, lied about inflation numbers, lied about Florida education policy, lies after lies about Trump pretty much daily etc. etc. In the end the American people are wising up and Trump looks like he will win in November. Just wondering what they will do next to try to stop Trump from being elected.

 

[McBell]

Nope, we have reasonable objections that no one will even consider. I listed about 12 on the trial alone and no one responded to them at all.

• Myth: No one knows what Trump was charged with.
• Myth: Prosecutors stretched the law to convert a misdemeanor into a felony.
• Myth: The prosecution didn’t tell Trump what he was charged with until closing argument, a violation of due process.
• Myth: It was improper for a state prosecutor to charge a federal offense.
• Myth: Trump would not have been charged for a mere bookkeeping error if his name were anything other than Donald J. Trump.
• Myth: There is nothing illegal about paying hush money, and famous people do it all the time.
• Myth: The charges were filed after lengthy delay to interfere with Trump’s campaign for president.
• Myth: Justice Juan Merchan was biased because of his $35 financial contribution to Joe Biden and because of his daughter’s work as a democratic political consultant.
• Myth: Juan Merchan is a judge on the New York County Supreme Court.
• Myth: Justice Juan Merchan violated Trump’s rights to defend himself by refusing to permit him to call an expert witness.
• Myth: Justice Merchan violated Trump’s First Amendment rights to free speech and to testify in his own defense by imposing a gag order in the case.
• Myth: The U.S. Supreme Court may intervene and overturn Trump’s conviction before the his sentencing on July 11, which is four days before the GOP convention.

Debunking 12 Myths About Trump’s Conviction​

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

this case was delayed years

That was Trump's doing. They should all have been prosecuted by now.

then was rushed to get to court.

Nothing has been rushed. A few cases have finally gotten to a courtroom.

Why are all of these cases happening within a year of the election?

It's almost always within a year of an election.

Do you think if Bragg had the same evidence against Biden he would have prosecuted him?

Yes, but let's stipulate to the idea that Bragg would not have prosecuted Biden with the same evidence against him.

Your point seems to be that Trump is being treated unfairly. If so, I'll tell you what I always say in such matters. I don't believe that, but I also wouldn't mind object to any treatment of Trump on the grounds that it was unfair. Though I have no evidence that Bragg acted inappropriately, I'm uninterested in any argument that has at its premise that Trump is being treated unfairly because that's impossible. There is nothing that can be done to him that's unfair except to treat him like he's above the law.

So what is your argument? That convicting Trump was unfair? Something else?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That was Trump's doing. They should all have been prosecuted by now.

How? September 2016 is when we knew about the NDA, it was March 2023 when Trump was indicted and at the last minute Bragg turned over over 100k documents to Trump's attorney's and the trial was only delayed 1 month. They would have to review almost 140 documents per hour working 24/7 to review them all before the trial.

Yes, but let's stipulate to the idea that Bragg would not have prosecuted Biden with the same evidence against him.

Your point seems to be that Trump is being treated unfairly. If so, I'll tell you what I always say in such matters. I don't believe that, but I also wouldn't mind object to any treatment of Trump on the grounds that it was unfair. Though I have no evidence that Bragg acted inappropriately, I'm uninterested in any argument that has at its premise that Trump is being treated unfairly because that's impossible. There is nothing that can be done to him that's unfair except to treat him like he's above the law.

So what is your argument? That convicting Trump was unfair? Something else?

Wow, you really are against personal liberty and individual rights I guess.

In the end it won't matter, he will be elected.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

In the end it won't matter, he will be elected.

How do you know that?
I mean, I don't know that one way or another. It is to far out still to say as an absolute, as far as I can tell.

 

[Pogo]

How? September 2016 is when we knew about the NDA, it was March 2023 when Trump was indicted and at the last minute Bragg turned over over 100k documents to Trump's attorney's and the trial was only delayed 1 month. They would have to review almost 140 documents per hour working 24/7 to review them all before the trial.

Wow, you really are against personal liberty and individual rights I guess.

In the end it won't matter, he will be elected.

Your personal liberty ends at my nose. As stated in the laws of NY, Donald Trump does not have the individual right to falsify business documents to cover up other crimes.

Due process and the jury of his peers found that he did and as he said, "If they can do this to me then they can do this to anybody" which is an amazingly pithy way to admit that he is equal under the law.
You and he and his other sycophants, seem to think there is something wrong with this concept.