The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#19,926
#19,926
hog88 said:
It's this kind of stuff that shouldn't be considered "official duties" and the judge should rule against them on the motion. Now with that being said I think there is ample reason for his conviction to be tossed on other grounds.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I do think Hope Hicks testimony might be troublesome now after the SC ruling yesterday.

I do think a new trial might be in order....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf
#19,928
#19,928
BigOrangeMojo said:
I agree with you. I do think Hope Hicks testimony might be troublesome now after the SC ruling yesterday.

I do think a new trial might be in order....
Click to expand...


The fact of having had conversations with officials in the government does not cloak illegal conduct with legality. Example: Biden tells Harris "I'm going to have Trump executed" and the next morning he's dead. The mere fact that he told a government official what he planned to do does not make it an official or "core" act.
 
#19,929
#19,929
Honestly though I think the NY case is complete BS and it should never have been tried much less convicted, I dont see where Presidential immunity for official acts gives Trump a pass.

Everything relating to this was through either the Trump org or him personally and not as his position of a candidate or as President. Then again, that is what they tried to claim - that it actually WAS about him running for office, etc. sand thus at least anything relating to this during his Presidency would be official, so perhaps cant have it both ways lol

I think the other possibility is that they brought in other evidence from time Trump was Pres that may have been covered under immunity and thus that could easily be used to say the case was tainted, fruit of poison tree, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002
#19,931
#19,931
lawgator1 said:
The fact of having had conversations with officials in the government does not cloak illegal conduct with legality. Example: Biden tells Harris "I'm going to have Trump executed" and the next morning he's dead. The mere fact that he told a government official what he planned to do does not make it an official or "core" act.
Click to expand...
No July 11th for you
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franklin Pierce
#19,932
#19,932
lawgator1 said:
The fact of having had conversations with officials in the government does not cloak illegal conduct with legality. Example: Biden tells Harris "I'm going to have Trump executed" and the next morning he's dead. The mere fact that he told a government official what he planned to do does not make it an official or "core" act.
Click to expand...
The communication between the 2 would be an official act. If Biden was then charged, that communication couldn't be used as proof...and the charges would need to be proven outside of official acts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf
#19,933
#19,933
lawgator1 said:
The fact of having had conversations with officials in the government does not cloak illegal conduct with legality. Example: Biden tells Harris "I'm going to have Trump executed" and the next morning he's dead. The mere fact that he told a government official what he planned to do does not make it an official or "core" act.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, I would hope that any reasonable judge would see it the same way.
 
#19,934
#19,934
whodeycin85 said:
The communication between the 2 would be an official act. If Biden was then charged, that communication couldn't be used as proof...and the charges would need to be proven outside of official acts.
Click to expand...


I don't think that's how it would work. The act is illegal. The communication is not, itself, illegal, but it can be evidence of the illegality of the act. Why wouldn't it be admissible? Its not hearsay, its a statement by a party.
 
#19,936
#19,936
whodeycin85 said:
The communication between the 2 would be an official act. If Biden was then charged, that communication couldn't be used as proof...and the charges would need to be proven outside of official acts.
Click to expand...

I had forgotten about Hope Hicks. Her testimony pretty much blows up their trial. There is no way that a discussion with his comms director wouldnt be official act and her testimony is impossible to unravel from the rest that got a conviction.

If they want this, they are going to have to retry it without her. Good luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#19,937
#19,937
lawgator1 said:
I don't think that's how it would work. The act is illegal. The communication is not, itself, illegal, but it can be evidence of the illegality of the act. Why wouldn't it be admissible? Its not hearsay, its a statement by a party.
Click to expand...
Because it's an official communication unless it can be proven it was out side of official contact....the burden would be on the prosecution team to prove that communication wasn't an official act in order to use it as proof. As for hearsay unless one or both admit to it or it caught on video. It hearsay. Which has proven more unreliable everytime the left uses itm
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf
#19,938
#19,938
whodeycin85 said:
Because it's an official communication unless it can be proven it was out side of official contact....the burden would be on the prosecution team to prove that communication wasn't an official act in order to use it as proof. As for hearsay unless one or both admit to it or it caught on video. It hearsay. Which has proven more unreliable everytime the left uses itm
Click to expand...


I really don't think so. At pretty much any level.
 
#19,939
#19,939
hog88 said:
Refresh my memory please.
Click to expand...

Not sure if it's what he's referring to but she testified about Trump attacking the driver to get him to take him to the Capitol? She had to do a significant after the fact amendment to her testimony and the person she claimed to have heard this from also testified to the committee but IIRC his testimony is "missing".

It was dramatic TV but sounds like it was BS
 
#19,941
#19,941
hog88 said:
Refresh my memory please.
Click to expand...

Gandalf said:
I had forgotten about Hope Hicks. Her testimony pretty much blows up their trial. There is no way that a discussion with his comms director wouldnt be official act and her testimony is impossible to unravel from the rest that got a conviction.

If they want this, they are going to have to retry it without her. Good luck.
Click to expand...

I think they can still get there without her but yes, it's going to be harder.

She was a credible witness, which is what was missing from Cohen for sure.
 
#19,942
#19,942
volinbham said:
Not sure if it's what he's referring to but she testified about Trump attacking the driver to get him to take him to the Capitol? She had to do a significant after the fact amendment to her testimony and the person she claimed to have heard this from also testified to the committee but IIRC his testimony is "missing".

It was dramatic TV but sounds like it was BS
Click to expand...

I knew that, I thought MoJo was referring to her testimony at his NY trial (if she even testified).
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham and whodeycin85
#19,946
#19,946
hog88 said:
I knew that, I thought MoJo was referring to her testimony at his NY trial (if she even testified).
Click to expand...

I was. Hope probably could testify to Access Hollywood fallout and keep that line of questioning opening. All of that was pre Jan 2017.

I'd say the stuff she testified to from time at White House could be bigger issue since she does help set up scheduling timeline with Cohen's visit to discuss reimbursement. Probably other ways to corroborate but she was a convincing witness. The less reliance on Cohen, the better...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and RockyTop85
#19,947
#19,947
BigOrangeMojo said:
I agree with you. I do think Hope Hicks testimony might be troublesome now after the SC ruling yesterday.

I do think a new trial might be in order....
Click to expand...
Good luck with that. They went to a lot of trouble to set up this show trial. They are not about to have another. They are going to hang the gangster. It is as simple as that.
 
#19,948
#19,948
volinbham said:
I think it's a play to push it closer to the election for maximum impact. I believe once he's sentenced he can file a Federal civil rights appeal - likely trying to push this to optimal timing.
Click to expand...
I don't think so for if Trump's attorney had not filed the motion to delay with the court, the sentencing date would still be July 11.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#19,949
#19,949
BigOrangeMojo said:
I was. Hope probably could testify to Access Hollywood fallout and keep that line of questioning opening. All of that was pre Jan 2017.

I'd say the stuff she testified to from time at White House could be bigger issue since she does help set up scheduling timeline with Cohen's visit to discuss reimbursement. Probably other ways to corroborate but she was a convincing witness. The less reliance on Cohen, the better...
Click to expand...
Really great series of posts. The prohibition on using internal/official communications and deliberations as evidence wasn’t a big part of the opinion, but it’s definitely there. The effect on the NY case, due to Hicks’s testimony, is something I hadn’t thought of or read/heard from anybody else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and BigOrangeMojo
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top