The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#19,951
#19,951
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? It’s not hearsay, it’s a statement by a party.
Click to expand...
From the syllabus: (3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be im- mune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#19,955
#19,955
From Merchan's letter to the attorneys:

"The July 11, 2024, sentencing date is therefore vacated. The Court’s decision will be rendered off-calendar on September 6, 2024, and the matter is adjourned to September 18, 2024, at 10:00 AM for the imposition of sentence, if such is still necessary, or other proceedings," Merchan wrote in a letter to Trump attorneys and New York prosecutors.
 
#19,956
#19,956
jmacvols1 said:
Click to expand...


Teflon Don indeed. Trump makes Gotti look like a punk by comparison.

Granted, if they werent trying to throw made up stupid crap at Trump, it wouldnt keep failing so spectacularly. Still, for almost anyone else, when the full force of gov at every level is coming to bury you, you are going to get crushed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and jmacvols1
#19,957
#19,957
CobbVol said:
From Merchan's letter to the attorneys:

"The July 11, 2024, sentencing date is therefore vacated. The Court’s decision will be rendered off-calendar on September 6, 2024, and the matter is adjourned to September 18, 2024, at 10:00 AM for the imposition of sentence, if such is still necessary, or other proceedings," Merchan wrote in a letter to Trump attorneys and New York prosecutors.
Click to expand...

The cynic in my sees a late August/Labor Day mistral dump...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gandalf
#19,960
#19,960
RockyTop85 said:
Looking at the text of the opinion again, it seems like if the reimbursement was a private or unofficial act then Hicks’s testimony might be fine. But I don’t know enough about the content her testimony to say for sure.
Click to expand...

Her testimony was to partly set up timing of Cohen coming to White House to make sure he got paid (i.e. the fake retainer scheme).

I'd agree Trump's actions here would be unofficial acts but is part of Hope's testimony off limits due to this ruling? That I do no know.

I don't think charges get dropped but I do think a mistral is a possibility.
 
#19,963
#19,963
BigOrangeMojo said:
Her testimony was to partly set up timing of Cohen coming to White House to make sure he got paid (i.e. the fake retainer scheme).

I'd agree Trump's actions here would be unofficial acts but is part of Hope's testimony off limits due to this ruling? That I do no know.

I don't think charges get dropped but I do think a mistral is a possibility.
Click to expand...
It seems like the opinion is focused on discussions or records of things that would incite a jury and also fall under executive privilege being used as evidence in cases related to unofficial acts. Discussions with officials and advisors about unofficial matters doesn’t seem out of bounds.

Even if some of Hicks’s testimony is technically out of bounds, if those portions aren’t especially material, serve to corroborate something else, and/or are not unfairly prejudicial, the judge could find that any error was harmless.

Also, given that it is an evidentiary issue, it might depend on whether the defense made a contemporaneous objection, which is what supposedly sank them on Daniels’s testimony.

Again, I don’t know as much as you do about the proof. I’m just giving a range of other outcomes that would still fall in line with crim law norms. The court did pretty explicitly create a two-tiered system of justice so I’m not sure “this is how it would work if it were you or me” is very helpful here.

Straight up, I’d still bet on no mistrial, but I wouldn’t bet more than like $20, and I’d see what kind of odds I could get on a mistrial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen and BigOrangeMojo
#19,964
#19,964
RockyTop85 said:
It seems like the opinion is focused on discussions or records of things that would incite a jury and also fall under executive privilege being used as evidence in cases related to unofficial acts. Discussions with officials and advisors about unofficial matters doesn’t seem out of bounds.

Even if some of Hicks’s testimony is technically out of bounds, if those portions aren’t especially material, serve to corroborate something else, and/or are not unfairly prejudicial, the judge could find that any error was harmless.

Also, given that it is an evidentiary issue, it might depend on whether the defense made a contemporaneous objection, which is what supposedly sank them on Daniels’s testimony.

Again, I don’t know as much as you do about the proof. I’m just giving a range of other outcomes that would still fall in line with crim law norms. The court did pretty explicitly create a two-tiered system of justice so I’m not sure “this is how it would work if it were you or me” is very helpful here.

Straight up, I’d still bet on no mistrial, but I wouldn’t bet more than like $20, and I’d see what kind of odds I could get on a mistrial.
Click to expand...

I still wouldn't bet mistrial but pushing it that far gives me the impression judge will consider it...

Honestly, a mistrial might be best political path for Ds....
 
#19,965
#19,965
Gandalf said:
Teflon Don indeed. Trump makes Gotti look like a punk by comparison.

Granted, if they werent trying to throw made up stupid crap at Trump, it wouldnt keep failing so spectacularly. Still, for almost anyone else, when the full force of gov at every level is coming to bury you, you are going to get crushed.
Click to expand...
gov't agencies have billions of taxpayer dollars they cannot account for but if you have $1000 in unaccounted income the IRS will nail you.
 
#19,968
#19,968
lawgator1 said:
I think so but no need to go there and tangle with the immunity claim. Just prosecute the President for murder, or related criminal charges.
Click to expand...
I guess it would depend on whether you want expediency or a quick 'conviction'. Party in power is the determinant. No one in DC gives a **** either way. They won't do anything to anybody just like they always do. Trump is the ONLY exception and that is because BOTH parties hate him. You really should get on board and see that this is not about Trump, but rather about a corrupt DC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and LibertyVol
#19,971
#19,971
Sudden Impact said:
Not at all. Tribal vs Facts. History vs Present. Dead President (60 years +) vs Current Candidates. Comparison of Party's policies/agendas (60 years ago) vs today is Useless.
I am a little more mature to be upset about a child's point of view when it has no facts and wanders aimlessly just to get a stupid response. Stick to the facts, and reality versus making 60 year old comparisons.
Click to expand...
You must really hate my posts.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top