If you and I were on the jury.

[icanhelp1]

So, then what about Obama appointed judges?

What about them?

You're so full of shit.

Back at you.

You complain about Merchan's alleged bias but don't see any in Cannon.

Not yet, trial hasn't started yet. So far the majority of cases litigated by Trump lawyers presided by Trump appointed Judges has not gone well for Trump.

There's that beam in your eye.

 

[adrina]

What about them?

Back at you.

Not yet, trial hasn't started yet. So far the majority of cases litigated by Trump lawyers presided by Trump appointed Judges has not gone well for Trump.

Yes what about them? Considering conservatives have complained about Obama judges. You parrot that propaganda.

You complained about Merchan from the get go, rulings before the actual trial started.

You have zero consistency. You're just a whore for Trump.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

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.

There are many reasons I believe the verdict will be overturned on appeal. On this specific issue, I expect the defense to successfully argue several points which will include:

• Jurisdiction. The defense will point out that campaign finance laws are enforced by the Federal Election Commission. Criminal violations are prosecuted by the DOJ. States lack jurisdiction.
• No crime. The FEC didn’t fine Trump and the DOJ didn’t prosecute Trump.
• Jury denied info relevant application of federal campaign finance law. Even if NY had jurisdiction to prosecute federal campaign law violations, the jury was not informed of how federal election laws could apply to the case. The defense had an expert witness prepared to testify but the judge would not allow testimony specific to the case. He would have only been allowed to speak in general terms.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

If you would please reread and comprehend the content of my LAST post I believe I clarified the questions I was asking. Are you still confused about it or should I simplify it? To alleviate any undue stress on you having to go back and read the question again, let me restate it:

You accused Judge Merchan of partisan behavior and stated it is clearly apparent he was so. Comparing the two do you also recognize the partisan behavior of Judge Cannon? If not why not?

Comshaw

No, I don’t see any partisan behavior by Judge Cannon. Neither did the 11th circuit court of appeals. The case hasn’t gone to trial yet, and that’s why you’re having a hissy fit. You want a trial before the election.

 

[ll74]

No, I don’t see any partisan behavior by Judge Cannon. Neither did the 11th circuit court of appeals. The case hasn’t gone to trial yet, and that’s why you’re having a hissy fit. You want a trial before the election.

You don't remember the special master ruling?

Ok....

 

[jomar]

No, I don’t see any partisan behavior by Judge Cannon. Neither did the 11th circuit court of appeals. The case hasn’t gone to trial yet, and that’s why you’re having a hissy fit. You want a trial before the election.

You don't remember the special master ruling?

Ok....

Or the current slow walking of the case?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

You may also want to show BabyBoobs this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/02/opinion/trump-trial-juan-merchan.html

And this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/18/opinion/judge-cannon-trump-documents-case.html







BabyBoobs

The first article you shared is basically a character reference for Merchan. How sweet of you. Nothing in the opinion piece addresses facts of the case. Nothing about jurisdiction for federal election laws, nothing about the federal election law itself, nothing about evidence that was allowed and disallowed in the court room, etc.

The second article is a classic deflection. “What about Judge Cannon?” Sorry you and your friends here that don’t want to speak to the topic of this thread. You guys hate whataboutism except when you find it convenient to use it yourselves. But thanks for sharing the link anyway because the author makes his core complaint (and yours) very clear:

“If Mr. Trump wins the election, the case will be effectively over. The Trump Justice Department would almost certainly dismiss the indictment at his behest when the clock strikes noon on Jan. 20, 2025.”

 

[icanhelp1]

Or the current slow walking of the case?

The slow walking is due to allegations of Smith and the boys (FBI) tampering with evidence.

 

[jomar]

The slow walking is due to allegations of Smith and the boys (FBI) tampering with evidence.

You keep forgetting to link up your claims. If it would help and seem fair, I’ll link up mine.

 

[Lazaran]

The first article you shared is basically a character reference for Merchan. How sweet of you. Nothing in the opinion piece addresses facts of the case. Nothing about jurisdiction for federal election laws, nothing about the federal election law itself, nothing about evidence that was allowed and disallowed in the court room, etc.

The second article is a classic deflection. “What about Judge Cannon?” Sorry you and your friends here that don’t want to speak to the topic of this thread. You guys hate whataboutism except when you find it convenient to use it yourselves. But thanks for sharing the link anyway because the author makes his core complaint (and yours) very clear:

“If Mr. Trump wins the election, the case will be effectively over. The Trump Justice Department would almost certainly dismiss the indictment at his behest when the clock strikes noon on Jan. 20, 2025.”

BabyBoobs apparently doesn’t like an alternative take on the NONPARTISAN impartiality of Judge Merchan or the whataboutism turnabout is fair play foot in the ass.

Poor BabyBoobs.



BabyBoobs

 

[icanhelp1]

You keep forgetting to link up your claims. If it would help and seem fair, I’ll link up mine.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tr...g-latest-bid-delay-documents-case-2024-05-07/

Trump’s lawyers suggested in a letter filed in court that prosecutors had not appropriately handled evidence central to the case. The demand for more documents was an indication Trump’s legal team may use the issue to further delay the case.
Trump’s lawyers have already sought an array of records from the intelligence community and other federal agencies as they attempt to build a case that the prosecution was a politically motivated effort by the Biden administration.

Cannon, despite rejecting two Trump attempts to dismiss the charges, has shown an openness to claims in his defense. The judge on Monday postponed a key deadline related to classified evidence at Trump’s request.
A trial date remains uncertain.

The case should be dropped period!

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

BabyBoobs apparently doesn’t like an alternative take on the NONPARTISAN impartiality of Judge Merchant tor the whataboutism turnabout is fair play foot in the ass.

Poor BabyBoobs.



BabyBoobs

Show me a legal expert’s take on the merits of the case and why it will stand or fall on appeal, not a character reference. I’ve shared one legal opinion and could share others but several of the left wingers here won’t even read it because they don’t like the author and anticipate not liking what he has to say.

 

[Bn2f]

Sweet Baby Jesus
The people here now saying that you’re being hysterical over Judge Cannon because the trial has yet to start are the same ones who planted the poison seed that trump could not ever get a fair trial to begin with in NYC because trump’s former home has too many libs.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

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.

lol bullshit boomer. The judge bent over backwards to help the Defence. All Trump had to do to win was admit he fucked stormy and paid to cover it up to protect his family. If Trump had used that line of defence he wouldn't be a convicted felon today.

 

[Comshaw]

No, I don’t see any partisan behavior by Judge Cannon. Neither did the 11th circuit court of appeals. The case hasn’t gone to trial yet, and that’s why you’re having a hissy fit. You want a trial before the election.

See? Now was that so hard, answering a direct question with a direct answer? A hissy fit? Really? Apparently, you've never been witness to such a thing. Oh wait, that's right. You follow the donald so you have seen it numerous times. My bad.

It's rather entertaining that you insist the trial must be in session or complete before any partisan behavior on the part of the presiding judge can be seen. Why would that be necessary? For any sensible person it wouldn't be.

But then I accomplished what I wished to, I got you to man up and quit the verbal tapdancing and say in plain language what you were trying to slyly infer. Cudos to you.

Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

Show me a legal expert’s take on the merits of the case and why it will stand or fall on appeal, not a character reference. I’ve shared one legal opinion and could share others but several of the left wingers here won’t even read it because they don’t like the author and anticipate not liking what he has
to say.

Joyce Vance:
"Here’s my response: Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers who heard all the evidence and found him guilty. We should trust the jury.

Trump claims the indictment was a Democratic ploy. There is no evidence to support that. It doesn’t make sense that 12 jurors, picked from a randomly summoned pool with Trump’s lawyers’ full involvement, a jury that included members who claimed Truth Social or the Wall St. Journal as primary news sources, would have unanimously found him guilty if he wasn’t. Occam’s Razor says to look first to the simplest answer. There is no need for conspiracy theories here. The jury convicted Trump because he was guilty.

Americans should ignore him and use the same common sense the jury did. The jurors saw every piece of evidence first hand; they considered it all together. They decided it met the government’s burden of proving Donald Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In our system of justice, that is their decision to make.

It is well worth making this point with anyone who questions the verdict. What approach would they rather have American justice use? A king? Is it Donald Trump who now metes out justice in America?"

https://joycevance.substack.com/p/felon

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

See? Now was that so hard, answering a direct question with a direct answer? A hissy fit? Really? Apparently, you've never been witness to such a thing. Oh wait, that's right. You follow the donald so you have seen it numerous times. My bad.

It's rather entertaining that you insist the trial must be in session or complete before any partisan behavior on the part of the presiding judge can be seen. Why would that be necessary? For any sensible person it wouldn't be.

But then I accomplished what I wished to, I got you to man up and quit the verbal tapdancing and say in plain language what you were trying to slyly infer. Cudos to you.

Comshaw

lol. Nice try

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Joyce Vance:
"Here’s my response: Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers who heard all the evidence and found him guilty. We should trust the jury.

Trump claims the indictment was a Democratic ploy. There is no evidence to support that. It doesn’t make sense that 12 jurors, picked from a randomly summoned pool with Trump’s lawyers’ full involvement, a jury that included members who claimed Truth Social or the Wall St. Journal as primary news sources, would have unanimously found him guilty if he wasn’t. Occam’s Razor says to look first to the simplest answer. There is no need for conspiracy theories here. The jury convicted Trump because he was guilty.

Americans should ignore him and use the same common sense the jury did. The jurors saw every piece of evidence first hand; they considered it all together. They decided it met the government’s burden of proving Donald Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In our system of justice, that is their decision to make.

It is well worth making this point with anyone who questions the verdict. What approach would they rather have American justice use? A king? Is it Donald Trump who now metes out justice in America?"

https://joycevance.substack.com/p/felon

The author actually agrees with me that the appeal will include some of the arguments I cited - jurisdiction, the question of the underlying “crime”, and the evidence that was allowed and disallowed. He added the “pick your crime from a list of three possibilities” menu of instructions Merchan gave the jury which I didn’t mention but many experts have and is surely to be raised in the appeal process. He didn’t offer any counter arguments to those points. He simply said the jury shouldn’t be criticized which is what I said as well. I believe the verdict will be overturned on appeal, but it will not be based on errors made be the jury.

 

[Lazaran]

The author actually agrees with me that the appeal will include some of the arguments I cited - jurisdiction, the question of the underlying “crime”, and the evidence that was allowed and disallowed. He added the “pick your crime from a list of three possibilities” menu of instructions Merchan gave the jury which I didn’t mention but many experts have and is surely to be raised in the appeal process. He didn’t offer any counter arguments to those points. He simply said the jury shouldn’t be criticized which is what I said as well. I believe the verdict will be overturned on appeal, but it will not be based on errors made be the jury.

First off:

The author is a woman.(What is it with BabyBoobs and misgendering???)

Second:

The author made it quite clear that, in HER view, the people had a strong position against any potential points of appeal from the corrupt orange traitor



Just more gaslighting from BabyBoobs.



Also:

In a previous post, BabyBoobs engaged in gaslighting AGAIN, and cited the lack of action by the FEC against the corrupt orange traitor as proof of "something?", while FAILING to include this:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...t four of,campaign finance law against Trump—







BabyBoobs

 

[Bn2f]

Sigh, ok. Lemme prepare myself for yet another day of listening to how this will be overturned on appeal.

Wouldn’t it be nice for a change if his supporters could pick 1 of the 34 counts and argue his innocence?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Several closed minded left wingers have refused to even read George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley’s legal analysis of the case because, well, they don’t like what he might have to say. lol. I could share perspectives from former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, but because he writes for National Review, they’ll attack him without reading anything as well.

To accommodate the closed-minded PB left wingers here that only consume articles that appear in sources that confirm their bias, here’s the piece from CNN legal analyst Elie Honig that I mentioned in an earlier post.

Like me, Honig respects the jury:

“By any reasonable measure, the jury of Manhattanites who yesterday found former president Donald Trump guilty on all 34 charges did its job, and did it well.”

Honig also believes that although the jury did its job as instructed by the court, the case is seriously flawed and he blames the judge and the prosecutors.

“Both of these things can be true at once: The jury did its job, and this case was an ill-conceived, unjustified mess. Sure, victory is the great deodorant, but a guilty verdict doesn’t make it all pure and right. Plenty of prosecutors have won plenty of convictions in cases that shouldn’t have been brought in the first place. “But they won” is no defense to a strained, convoluted reach unless the goal is to “win,” now, by any means necessary and worry about the credibility of the case and the fallout later.”

“Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. That’s not on the jury. That’s on the prosecutors who chose to bring the case and the judge who let it play out as it did.”

Honig then touches on a few things that other critics have raised, mostly centered around the nebulous underlying crime that the defendant has never been fined or charged with in any federal civil or criminal court.

https://archive.ph/2024.06.03-18020...victed-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html

 

[adrina]

Several closed minded left wingers have refused to even read George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley’s legal analysis of the case because, well, they don’t like what he might have to say. lol. I could share perspectives from former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, but because he writes for National Review, they’ll attack him without reading anything as well.

It's because Turley has proven himself a partisan hack.

He has tortured law to support Trump, Epstein etc. He traffics in propaganda and displays obvious disdain for democrats and liberals. He went from scholar to paid mouthpiece for rightwing propaganda.

We don't trust him. That's the facts. You can twist it all you want to make your ego feel better. But you cite someone who has many serious fundamental flaws.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Several closed minded left wingers have refused to even read George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley’s legal analysis of the case because, well, they don’t like what he might have to say.

The only opinions on the case I care about, are from the 12 people who ruled. That's how your system works.

Trump handcuffed his whole defence by not admitting to fucking Stormy. If he had and claimed he was trying to protect his family from finding out, he would have walked out not guilty, or the case never would have gone to trial.

Trump made this problem all on his own. Now you Trump cocksuckers need to spend hours and hours defending it....lol Great entertainment!!

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The only opinions on the case I care about, are from the 12 people who ruled. That's how your system works.

Trump handcuffed his whole defence by not admitting to fucking Stormy. If he had and claimed he was trying to protect his family from finding out, he would have walked out not guilty, or the case never would have gone to trial.

Trump made this problem all on his own. Now you Trump cocksuckers need to spend hours and hours defending it....lol Great entertainment!!

Yes, the jury did its job. The appeal will be based on the legal flaws.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yes, the jury did its job. The appeal will be based on the legal flaws.

Awesome!!

Can you tell me my future now??