If you and I were on the jury.

[BabyBoomer50s]

Is it just donations made? Do we consider when justices receive lavish gifts from donors? Do we consider the amount? Is $35 donated equivalent, worse than, not as bad as hundreds of thousands of dollars in value received?

I didn’t say Merchan should have been recused. Judges are allowed to have political views, donate to campaigns, have spouses that participate in the political process.

I said he’s a Biden donor who ran the trial in a partisan manner. I’m quite certain that if he had been a Trump donor people on the left would have been quick to point that out as well.

I expect the case to be overturned on appeal, but not because the judge was a Biden donor, and not because the jury did anything wrong. I expect it to be overturned on its legal flaws.

One of the important distinctions between SCOTUS justices and lower court judges is that there are only 9 of them. They have an obligation to hear cases and should only recuse themselves if there is a clear conflict of interest involving a specific case before them. Despite the hysteria coming from extreme left wingers, I don’t anticipate anything like that coming before SCOTUS on the foreseeable horizon that would require any of them to recuse themselves.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

So… As a graduate of the Lawrence O’Donnell School of Law I gotta say

lol. Ok.

 

[Bn2f]

lol. Ok.

Here. Lemme clarify. Recusal rules do not apply to Supreme Court justices. Justices in the past have done so willingly to preserve the integrity of the court in the eyes of the public. Alito has no such desire, obviously.

 

[Bn2f]

lol. Ok.

I will apologize for my wording saying that you were wrong. Because nothing applies to them. Campaign donations, nor paid trips.

 

[adrina]

I didn’t say Merchan should have been recused. Judges are allowed to have political views, donate to campaigns, have spouses that participate in the political process.

I said he’s a Biden donor who ran the trial in a partisan manner. I’m quite certain that if he had been a Trump donor people on the left would have been quick to point that out as well.

I expect the case to be overturned on appeal, but not because the judge was a Biden donor, and not because the jury did anything wrong. I expect it to be overturned on its legal flaws.

One of the important distinctions between SCOTUS justices and lower court judges is that there are only 9 of them. They have an obligation to hear cases and should only recuse themselves if there is a clear conflict of interest involving a specific case before them. Despite the hysteria coming from extreme left wingers, I don’t anticipate anything like that coming before SCOTUS on the foreseeable horizon that would require any of them to recuse themselves.

There seems to be some confusion.

In your opinion then any judge who donates to a campaign should not recuse themselves from dealing with campaign related issues. Additionally, any judge who receives donations or gifts should also not recuse themselves from any campaign related issues.

It is interesting that you brought donations up. If you are using it to bolster your case for partisanship, then that same logic can also be used by those who feel that Alito and Thomas should recuse themselves.

If you are backing down from recusal because of donations then that leads to your partisan assessment. I believe your assessment of "running the trial in a partisan manner" is not accurate.

So at this point, since donations don't matter and your assessment of partisanship is up for question, that leads to legal flaws.

Which specific legal flaws?

 

[LLCox]

HANG HEEM :rope smilie:

 

[Bray123]

It's beyond doubt that the trial was run in a partisan manner.

Otherwise Trump would have been thrown down the stairs into the cells the first time he called the Judge corrupt.

Or the Clerk.
Or the witnesses.
Or the prosecutors.
Or the bailiff.
Or the Judge's daughter.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

There seems to be some confusion.

In your opinion then any judge who donates to a campaign should not recuse themselves from dealing with campaign related issues. Additionally, any judge who receives donations or gifts should also not recuse themselves from any campaign related issues.

It is interesting that you brought donations up. If you are using it to bolster your case for partisanship, then that same logic can also be used by those who feel that Alito and Thomas should recuse themselves.

If you are backing down from recusal because of donations then that leads to your partisan assessment. I believe your assessment of "running the trial in a partisan manner" is not accurate.

So at this point, since donations don't matter and your assessment of partisanship is up for question, that leads to legal flaws.

Which specific legal flaws?

Please read what I wrote and do not try and words in my mouth. I pointed out Merchan is a Biden donor. I did not say he shouldn’t have been allowed to preside over the trial. I don’t see any cases coming before SCOTUS that would require any justice to recuse themselves. If there is a specific case on the docket you’d like me to comment on I’m happy to do that.

I’ve read numerous articles about the NY case, including opinions from legal experts that lead me to believe there is a high probability the verdict will be overturned on appeal. Happy to share links if you’re interested in reading.

 

[adrina]

Please read what I wrote and do not try and words in my mouth. I pointed out Merchan is a Biden donor. I did not say he shouldn’t have been allowed to preside over the trial. I don’t see any cases coming before SCOTUS that would require any justice to recuse themselves. If there is a specific case on the docket you’d like me to comment on I’m happy to do that.

I’ve read numerous articles about the NY case, including opinions from legal experts that lead me to believe there is a high probability the verdict will be overturned on appeal. Happy to share links if you’re interested in reading.

Why is it so hard to answer a basic question?

If you have read so many articles then it should not be hard to give some kind of brief summary of the highlights.

What legal flaws?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Why is it so hard to answer a basic question?

If you have read so many articles then it should not be hard to give some kind of brief summary of the highlights.

What legal flaws?

Here’s one. Hopefully this isn’t too long or difficult for you to read or comprehend.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/...resents-a-target-rich-environment-for-appeal/

 

[adrina]

Here’s one. Hopefully this isn’t too long or difficult for you to read or comprehend.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/...resents-a-target-rich-environment-for-appeal/

Sorry but I'm not going to read a Turley article. Turley has his own laundry list of partisan issues. You want me to read a partisan who is telling us the judge was partisan.

Again, if you are so familiar with the issues you should be able to give a brief synopsis.

 

[ll74]

Here’s one. Hopefully this isn’t too long or difficult for you to read or comprehend.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/...resents-a-target-rich-environment-for-appeal/

That analysis seems to be the go-to for the right. I've been looking for a response analysis from other legal experts, but haven't found one yet. (Granted, this hasn't been a priority...just interested to see a discussion)

Perhaps there's a podcast out there or on its way on that. My personal opinion is that the verdict will be overturned on appeal at some level.

 

[adrina]

I can only assume that it is too difficult of a question to answer and instead he is relying on talking points.

 

[icanhelp1]

No I wasn't.

Bill Clinton was term limited out. Hunter Biden isn't running for president. Kennedies were over 60 years ago.

If Hunter Biden wasn't running then why so much effort to suppress the laptop. Do you think the laptop could have had negative ramifications against Biden's campaign. Just saying. Perhaps you should ask Blinken and the 51 intel agents why they were so concerned.

Don't fucking ever lecture anyone about any moral righteousness. If you think Trump's behavior is okay then you never ever get to bitch about any single thing with Bill Clinton, Hunter Biden or the last century Kennedies. You don't get to talk about Menendez or anything else.

I wasn't lecturing. Your premise is to convict Trump on behavior that happened several years ago and had nothing to do with the 2016 election. Trump's sexual escapades has nothing to do with Trump as president. Trump paying off Daniels was an NDA and perfectly legal, whether it was morally reprehensible behavior is immaterial. Clinton broke the most sacred contract, his marriage vows and did it while holding the offices of AG, Governor and then President of the United States. Trump never cheated on his wife while in office.

If this is okay with you then you are scum.

I don't now and never did condone immoral or unethical behavior, especially while holding office. Our political leadership should set the example but we all know that isn't always the case. If I'm not mistaken Joe Biden was involved in an extramarital affair with Jill, where's your outrage, OH! forgot! you only participate in selective outrage.

You guys went apeshit over a beige suit. A beige freakin' suit. And you want to tell me you'd be okay with this. Okey dokey.

? Beige suit?

This is called living in denial. You harp on literally 60 year old issues but excuse the current one with Trump.

And you harp on shit that happened in the 1990s

Anytime you bitch about any liberal anywhere anytime, this post should be pointed to.

I didn't point to liberals, I don't believe that true liberalism exist anymore.

You're okay with Trump. Your morals have no problem with supporting and excusing his behavior.

I'm not defending Trump for immoral behavior. I've written on several occasions that I don't hold Trump in high regard, but we think alike on major policy issues. My bone of contention is the fact that leftist loons like Green, Waters, Schiff, the FBI and a whole host of political assassins, assorted Trump haters crafted a conspiracy ( soft coup ) to throw him out of office without giving him a chance. He fought back and that made him ORANGE MAN BAD.

 

[Comshaw]

I didn’t say Merchan should have been recused. Judges are allowed to have political views, donate to campaigns, have spouses that participate in the political process.

I said he’s a Biden donor who ran the trial in a partisan manner. I’m quite certain that if he had been a Trump donor people on the left would have been quick to point that out as well.

I expect the case to be overturned on appeal, but not because the judge was a Biden donor, and not because the jury did anything wrong. I expect it to be overturned on its legal flaws.

One of the important distinctions between SCOTUS justices and lower court judges is that there are only 9 of them. They have an obligation to hear cases and should only recuse themselves if there is a clear conflict of interest involving a specific case before them. Despite the hysteria coming from extreme left wingers, I don’t anticipate anything like that coming before SCOTUS on the foreseeable horizon that would require any of them to recuse themselves.

Hmmmm...okay, if you believe this, then do you also believe Judge Aileen Cannon should recuse herself from the trial she is overseeing because she has "run the trial in a partisan manner"? What is good for one is good for all.

Comshaw

 

[icanhelp1]

There seems to be some confusion.

In your opinion then any judge who donates to a campaign should not recuse themselves from dealing with campaign related issues. Additionally, any judge who receives donations or gifts should also not recuse themselves from any campaign related issues.

It is interesting that you brought donations up. If you are using it to bolster your case for partisanship, then that same logic can also be used by those who feel that Alito and Thomas should recuse themselves.

If you are backing down from recusal because of donations then that leads to your partisan assessment. I believe your assessment of "running the trial in a partisan manner" is not accurate.

So at this point, since donations don't matter and your assessment of partisanship is up for question, that leads to legal flaws.

Which specific legal flaws?

Rule 2.11: Disqualification​

Share:
(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:
(1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge* of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.
(2) The judge knows* that the judge, the judge’s spouse or domestic partner,* or a person within the third degree of relationship* to either of them, or the spouse or domestic partner of such a person is:
(a) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, general partner, managing member, or trustee of a party;
(b) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(c) a person who has more than a de minimis* interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; or
(d) likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(3) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary,* or the judge’s spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child, or any other member of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s household,* has an economic interest* in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding.



(C) A judge subject to disqualification under this Rule, other than for bias or prejudice under paragraph (A)(1), may disclose on the record the basis of the judge’s disqualification and may ask the parties and their lawyers to consider, outside the presence of the judge and court personnel, whether to waive disqualification. If, following the disclosure, the parties and lawyers agree, without participation by the judge or court personnel, that the judge should not be disqualified, the judge may participate in the proceeding. The agreement shall be incorporated into the record of the proceeding.


https://abcnews.go.com/US/trumps-lawyers-push-recusal-judge-juan-merchan-hush/story?id=108748916#:~:text=Interest Successfully Added-,Trump's lawyers push for recusal of Judge Juan Merchan in,his daughter's political consulting work.


Donald Trump's lawyers are again asking Judge Juan Merchan to recuse himself from the former president's New York hush money trial, seven months after the judge declined a similar request by defense lawyers.

Defense lawyers filed a letter Monday arguing that Merchan's daughter's work for the digital consulting firm Authentic Campaigns creates an "ongoing financial interest" tied to the former president's criminal trial.

"Under these circumstances, Your Honor has an interest in this case that warrants recusal, there is an unacceptable risk that the Court's family relationships will influence judicial conduct, and the Court's impartiality 'might reasonably be questioned,'" defense lawyer Todd Blanche wrote, asking for permission to file a motion in support of recusal.

MORE: Judge in hush money case e​

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

It seems like a pretty open-and-shut case.

Michael Cohen made an illegal campaign contribution to the Trump campaign of $130k by using his private funds to pay off Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election.

Trump falsified business records in the state of New York to hide Cohen’s crime which is a felony.

Ironically, if Donald Trump had just written a personal check for $130k to Daniels in 2016, he wouldn’t be in trouble now.

 

[Bodington]

It wasn't an ad hominem attack, it was a true statement. If you haven't read up about the charges then that's on you, they are widely known and available for you.

Well now, the Mirriam Webster dictionary defines ‘ad hominem’ as: “marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made”. You called me and I quote “you are a dumbshit trumptard.” Incidentally you need not worry that I was offended by your witty response. As I said I’m comforted by Pres Lincoln famous quote. Mind you I’m curious how you do define ‘ad hominem’? A hint for you, even if as you say you were making a true statement in that by universal consensus, I am truly a “dumbshit trumptard” it is still an ad hominem attack on my character as you don’t address the points I was making in my opening post. In this discourse between you and I, reminds me of a t-shirt my daughter possessed” “I love to engage in a battle of wits with you, but you seem to be unarmed”.

 

[adrina]

Rule 2.11: Disqualification​

Share:
(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:
(1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge* of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.
(2) The judge knows* that the judge, the judge’s spouse or domestic partner,* or a person within the third degree of relationship* to either of them, or the spouse or domestic partner of such a person is:
(a) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, general partner, managing member, or trustee of a party;
(b) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(c) a person who has more than a de minimis* interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; or
(d) likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(3) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary,* or the judge’s spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child, or any other member of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s household,* has an economic interest* in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding.



(C) A judge subject to disqualification under this Rule, other than for bias or prejudice under paragraph (A)(1), may disclose on the record the basis of the judge’s disqualification and may ask the parties and their lawyers to consider, outside the presence of the judge and court personnel, whether to waive disqualification. If, following the disclosure, the parties and lawyers agree, without participation by the judge or court personnel, that the judge should not be disqualified, the judge may participate in the proceeding. The agreement shall be incorporated into the record of the proceeding.


https://abcnews.go.com/US/trumps-lawyers-push-recusal-judge-juan-merchan-hush/story?id=108748916#:~:text=Interest Successfully Added-,Trump's lawyers push for recusal of Judge Juan Merchan in,his daughter's political consulting work.


Donald Trump's lawyers are again asking Judge Juan Merchan to recuse himself from the former president's New York hush money trial, seven months after the judge declined a similar request by defense lawyers.

Defense lawyers filed a letter Monday arguing that Merchan's daughter's work for the digital consulting firm Authentic Campaigns creates an "ongoing financial interest" tied to the former president's criminal trial.

"Under these circumstances, Your Honor has an interest in this case that warrants recusal, there is an unacceptable risk that the Court's family relationships will influence judicial conduct, and the Court's impartiality 'might reasonably be questioned,'" defense lawyer Todd Blanche wrote, asking for permission to file a motion in support of recusal.

MORE: Judge in hush money case e​

You don't get to complain about the perceived improprieties of others.

You accept and support Trump.

Traitor.

 

[icanhelp1]

You don't get to complain about the perceived improprieties of others.

You accept and support Trump.

Traitor.

Typical deflection.

 

[adrina]

If Hunter Biden wasn't running then why so much effort to suppress the laptop. Do you think the laptop could have had negative ramifications against Biden's campaign. Just saying. Perhaps you should ask Blinken and the 51 intel agents why they were so concerned.

I wasn't lecturing. Your premise is to convict Trump on behavior that happened several years ago and had nothing to do with the 2016 election. Trump's sexual escapades has nothing to do with Trump as president. Trump paying off Daniels was an NDA and perfectly legal, whether it was morally reprehensible behavior is immaterial. Clinton broke the most sacred contract, his marriage vows and did it while holding the offices of AG, Governor and then President of the United States. Trump never cheated on his wife while in office.

I don't now and never did condone immoral or unethical behavior, especially while holding office. Our political leadership should set the example but we all know that isn't always the case. If I'm not mistaken Joe Biden was involved in an extramarital affair with Jill, where's your outrage, OH! forgot! you only participate in selective outrage.

? Beige suit?

And you harp on shit that happened in the 1990s

I didn't point to liberals, I don't believe that true liberalism exist anymore.

I'm not defending Trump for immoral behavior. I've written on several occasions that I don't hold Trump in high regard, but we think alike on major policy issues. My bone of contention is the fact that leftist loons like Green, Waters, Schiff, the FBI and a whole host of political assassins, assorted Trump haters crafted a conspiracy ( soft coup ) to throw him out of office without giving him a chance. He fought back and that made him ORANGE MAN BAD.

You support Trump. You do not think his actions disqualify him from holding office.

You are literally scum.

 

[adrina]

Typical deflection.

Typical traitor excuses.

Fly it high and own it. You support Trump. And his lack of morality.

You are morally bankrupt.

 

[icanhelp1]

Typical traitor excuses.

Fly it high and own it. You support Trump. And his lack of morality.

You are morally bankrupt.

I support many of Trump's policies, I don't support anyone's lack of moral Judgement.

 

[adrina]

I support many of Trump's policies, I don't support anyone's lack of moral Judgement.

Sure you do. You're selling out morality under the guise of the ends justify the means.

You live in a glass house and have a giant beam in your eye.

Hypocrite traitor.

 

[Bodington]

It seems like a pretty open-and-shut case.

Michael Cohen made an illegal campaign contribution to the Trump campaign of $130k by using his private funds to pay off Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election.

Trump falsified business records in the state of New York to hide Cohen’s crime which is a felony.

Ironically, if Donald Trump had just written a personal check for $130k to Daniels in 2016, he wouldn’t be in trouble now.

Well I commend you in that after 66 postings, you’re the first Trump hater who actually advances an argument against my contention in this thread. As to your point, don’t you think labeling the hush money payment as a campaign contribution is a stretch? I believe Hope Hicks testified at the trial that Trump was more concerned about embarrassment to his wife and family if the allegation by the porn star would become public knowledge. You also have to give weight to the fact that the Federal Election Commission who has the sole discretion to prosecute violations of federal campaign laws looked into the matter in 2018 and determine not to prosecute.

You’re also in error in suggesting that falsifying business records is a felony it is only a misdemeanor and time for prosecuting it had expired. That’s why the prosecution had to allege a different crime in conjunction with allegation of falsifying business records.