The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

[davethevol]

From some of the unredacted documents, the government was specifically looking for items pertaining to Operation Crossfire. They’re trying to cover their tracks. That’s why they’re going after Trump so hard, because those show illegal actions of Obama, Hillary, and the 3 letter agencies.

 

[BreatheUT]

The reality of this is that it is a way to keep Trump off the campaign trail.

The socialists are desperate because they know Puddinhead would lose bigly in a straight up, honest campaign

Biden = Harris

Plus they want to paint Trump as a criminal so it's not just tying him up in court cases. This will legitimize why Biden doesn't have to debate him. If Biden can stay close enough in the polls, then they won't debate. Everything we are seeing is first time stuff. Biden is the weakest candidate in our history. It's like UT football making their main targets high school all district honorable mentions.

 

[MontyPython]

Trump seems sad nobody wants to protest his trial​

Before the trial began April 15, the Trump campaign was hyping the chaos that would ensue once the courtroom drama began, sending out a fundraising email with the subject line: “72 HOURS UNTIL ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE!”

The email reiterated: “If we fail to have a MASSIVE outpouring of peaceful patriotic support – right here, right now – all Hell will break loose.”

Seems the MAGA gang didn't get his memo.

‘Just tired of these trials’: Why the MAGA crowd is so thin outside Trump’s New York trial​

Seems the reporters outnumber the protestors. LMAO.

 

[Septic]

Coordinated efforts to apply maximum damage to his campaign.

Ironically, these very words could be used by the prosecuter to describe Trump's collusion with Pecker in the 2016 general election about Cruz, Rubio and Clinton.

 

[Septic]

Plus they want to paint Trump as a criminal so it's not just tying him up in court cases. This will legitimize why Biden doesn't have to debate him. If Biden can stay close enough in the polls, then they won't debate. Everything we are seeing is first time stuff. Biden is the weakest candidate in our history. It's like UT football making their main targets high school all district honorable mentions.

He's painted himself as a criminal, the grand jury in indictments confirm that.

 

[Septic]

The reality of this is that it is a way to keep Trump off the campaign trail.

The socialists are desperate because they know Puddinhead would lose bigly in a straight up, honest campaign

Biden = Harris

Trump is 0-1 against Puddinhead.

Imagine having to choke on that fact every day when he wakes up.

 

[BreatheUT]

Ironically, these very words could be used by the prosecuter to describe Trump's collusion with Pecker in the 2016 general election about Cruz, Rubio and Clinton.

Using the legal system?

You're struggling with the argument.

 

[hog88]

Again, that's why we have a trial. That's part of it

This shouldn’t have gone to trial, you know it.

 

[BreatheUT]

Trump is 0-1 against Puddinhead.

Imagine having to choke on that fact every day when he wakes up.

Puddinhead now has a record, there is no George Floyd the marxist can blame on Trump as the US being out of control (notice how legacy regime media refuse to cover the terrorism marches were seeing) or Covid to keep Puddinhead in the basement.

 

[dalton_vol]

not what I said..you are so full of hate, you are no better than Trump.

He's an errand boy for the dnc. Same guy who defend hunter biden and hillary

 

[dalton_vol]

Laws the law. Either you broke it or you did not. Now it's comical to me that LG has a hardon for this but had no problem giving Clinton a pass bc it was "sex"

Lol, that's a rich comment coming from a guy who defend biden.

 

[Septic]

This shouldn’t have gone to trial, you know it.

So some laws if broken, should be ignored?

I'll bet Mayokas wishes he could trot this argument out.

 

[Septic]

Puddinhead now has a record, the is no George Floyd the marxist can blame on Trump as the US being out of control (notice how legacy regime media refuse to cover the terrorism marches were seeing) or Covid to keep Puddinhead in the basement.

Trump has a record too. One that left voters wanting more.

 

[Septic]

Using the legal system?

You're struggling with the argument.

Of course not, trump is far too stupid for that. He depended on sleaze peddlers like Pecker to dupe you bozos.

Remember when you guys cried like babies about #fakenews? How does it feel for it to come out in court that your source of truth was the very one paying for BS stories?

let it sink in.

 

[hog88]

So some laws if broken, should be ignored?

I'll bet Mayokas wishes he could trot this argument out.

Yes, Trump committed misdemeanors in which the SoL had expired. So, this should have never been brought to trial. It's an absolute abuse of the NY justice system to charge him with felonies the DOJ passed on.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

So some laws if broken, should be ignored?

I'll bet Mayokas wishes he could trot this argument out.

I've defended the findings (not the amounts) from the other two civil cases but I'm sorry, this case ain't it.....

 

[Septic]

I've defended the findings (not the amounts) from the other two civil cases but I'm sorry, this case ain't it.....

As I stated, this case is Charmin soft and one frankly that most American's don't really care about it. But the truth of the matter is that laws, if broken carry the risk of enforcement.

Frankly, my hope is that that the jury will listen to the facts and apply them to a just verdict - guilty or innocent. Him being found innocent would likely take the edge out of his critique of the justice system and blunt his attacks for his future trials, if he can't kill them as POTUS.

 

[MG1968]

It’s Constitutional. There is your reason. As a lawyer do you not take an oath to follow the law? Also in your education did you learn how to make changes to that document?

SIAP, but his degree IS from Florida.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

As I stated, this case is Charmin soft and one frankly that most American's don't really care about it. But the truth of the matter is that laws, if broken carry the risk of enforcement.

Frankly, my hope is that that the jury will listen to the facts and apply them to a just verdict - guilty or innocent. Him being found innocent would likely take the edge out of his critique of the justice system and blunt his attacks for his future trials, if he can't kill them as POTUS.

He is clearly guilty of a misdemeanor. He is clearly a sleazy and immoral human being. The State had ample time to charge him with misdemeanors but they didn't. They passed on it, the Feds passed on campaign finance stuff and 8 yrs later, it is brought back up. The campaign finance stuf needed to bump it up to a felony, so far, is flimsy and contradicts precedent (John Edwards).

And a felony each time an expense accrual or liability accrual is made is beyond nuts...

 

[davethevol]

As I stated, this case is Charmin soft and one frankly that most American's don't really care about it. But the truth of the matter is that laws, if broken carry the risk of enforcement.

Frankly, my hope is that that the jury will listen to the facts and apply them to a just verdict - guilty or innocent. Him being found innocent would likely take the edge out of his critique of the justice system and blunt his attacks for his future trials, if he can't kill them as POTUS.

The problem is that Trump is such a high profile individual that there is almost zero percent chance he can receive a fair jury verdict. People are going to have their minds made up before the vote due to his polarizing image, and that is both the people that hate him and those that love him.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

So some laws if broken, should be ignored?

I'll bet Mayokas wishes he could trot this argument out.

Hillary and Joe and reams of classified information enter the chat. are you really this big a hypocrite?

 

[RockyTop85]

Why a Court Overturned the Death Sentence for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon Bomber

“Even the very worst among us deserves to be fairly tried and lawfully punished,” a judge wrote.

www.newyorker.com

“Sixty-eight per cent of the potential jurors said that they believed Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be guilty. Before voir dire started, the lawyers on both sides and the judge debated how potential jurors should be questioned on what they knew and thought of the bombing. The appeal hearing revealed that the defense argued for detailed discussions, but the judge opted to ask one general question of every juror: “Can you set aside your opinion and base your decision solely on the evidence that will be presented to you in court?””

“One potential juror, a psychologist, responded, “I don’t know that the brain works that way.” She said that it would be difficult for her to surrender her principled opposition to the death penalty, “because it’s not based on something I’ve heard in the media; it’s based on my personal beliefs. It’s even harder to set aside because it’s one of my lifelong beliefs.” She, too, was disqualified.”

“Juror No. 355, a criminal-defense attorney who had been training to run the 2014 Boston Marathon, claimed that he could vote for the death penalty even though he thought it was used too widely in the United States. The prosecutor, Steve Mellin, pressed him to give an example of someone who ought to be put to death for his crimes. The juror suggested Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugoslav dictator. “So, genocide?” Mellin asked. “Genocide is a good starting point,” the juror responded. I wrote in my notebook, “S.M. dislikes him deeply, judge says this ‘sounds a bit too much like cross-examination.’ ” The juror was disqualified, because, Judge O’Toole said, he did not believe the juror “was going to be truly open” to the death penalty “in the way that would be necessary.””

“The appeal showed that, in her interview, Juror No. 286 downplayed her knowledge of the case and use of social media. She had posted on Twitter and Facebook about the bombing, the ensuing manhunt, the capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (whom she called a “piece of garbage”), and the aftermath of the attack. Before the trial began, the defense brought this information to the judge, along with social-media posts by another juror, No. 138, who had bragged about being in the jury pool. Judge O’Toole dismissed the complaints…”

“ O’Toole held that “presumption of innocence” is “a term of art” that doesn’t actually mean that jurors must presume the defendant to be innocent.”

Loading…

www.supremecourt.gov

Held: The Court of Appeals improperly vacated Dzhokhar’s capital sentences.
(a) The District Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to ask about the content and extent of each juror’s media consumption regarding the bombings. Jury selection falls “particularly within the province of the trial judge,” Skilling v. United States, 561 U. S. 358, 386, whose broad discretion in this area includes deciding what questions to ask prospective jurors, see Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U. S. 415, 427. Here, the District Court did not abuse that discretion when, rec- ognizing the significant pretrial publicity concerning the bombings, the court refused to allow the question at issue because it wrongly emphasized what a juror knew before coming to court, rather than potential bias. That decision was reasonable and well within the court’s discretion.
The rest of the jury-selection process in this case dispels any remaining doubt. The District Court used the 100-question juror form—which asked prospective jurors what media sources they followed and whether any of that information had caused them to form an opinion about Dzhokhar’s guilt or punishment—to cull down the number of prospective jurors. The District Court then subjected those remaining prospective jurors to three weeks of individualized voir dire, including questions that probed for bias. Finally, the court instructed the prospective jurors during voir dire, and the seated jurors during trial, that their decisions must be based on the evidence presented at trial and not any other source.
The Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to put Dzhokhar’s proposed media-content question to the jury. Following its decision in Patriarca, the court concluded that it had “supervisory authority” to require the District Court, as a matter of law, to ask the jurors that specific question. The supervisory power of federal courts, however, does not extend to the creation of prophylactic supervisory rules that circumvent or supple- ment legal standards set out in decisions of this Court. See United States v. Payner, 447 U. S. 727, 733–737. Pp. 8–13.

Significant to note that the Circuit Court recently sent the case back for further investigation of the impartiality of the two jurors who were objected to after they were determined to have given misleading answers. United States v. TSARNAEV, Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit 2024 - Google Scholar

So, in the Tsarnaev case, the District Court dismissed jurors who weren’t sufficiently open to the death penalty, even if they said they were, and retained jurors who believed that the defendant was guilty. On the issue of the process that allowed those jurors onto the panel in the first place, the Supreme Court said it was legally sufficient and moreover that it wasn’t subject to meaningful review.

I don’t want to overstate the significance of the rulings so far, but my point is that law as it pertains to jury selection and impartiality are so toothless that the district court judge basically said, “A juror called the defendant garbage and didn’t disclose it? That’s not a problem.” “Oh, another juror’s friends are telling him to play it straight to get on the jury and help make sure the defendant is ‘taken care of?’ Also fine.” That case was expected to take months, if he had any reason to think there was a clear cut rule limiting his ability to do that, he’s got every incentive to rule in favor of the defendant. And it seems like he wasn’t totally wrong because the case is still in limbo nearly a decade later.

If you’re upset about the process (and possibly the result) that Trump received in jury selection, your beef is with the system, not this individual case.

 

[Sandman 423]

Hillary and Joe and reams of classified information enter the chat. are you really this big a hypocrite?

Septic^^^^^^^

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Democrats hypocrisy being reveled & keep losing w/judges makes my day ....

 

[Sudden Impact]

Well, as pathetic of a case this is, at least we now know why Trump called the Media out for "Fake News".