The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today
-
Yup - expected. It also would not be a surprise if the verdict is overturned by the Supreme Court. Vox did a decent review of this a year ago.
IF the Supreme Court were to overrule the current conviction AND if it were a 6-3 vote, one can be certain that left leaning voters will feel as outraged as right leaning voters are feeling today.
I suspect that is what DJT will be urging today - that the Supreme Court review the appropriateness of the prosecution. Whatever happens - and I'd bet for the overturning - one can be sure that everyone will be even more energized for the November election.
@kluurs said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Yup - expected. It also would not be a surprise if the verdict is overturned by the Supreme Court. Vox did a decent review of this a year ago.
IF the Supreme Court were to overrule the current conviction AND if it were a 6-3 vote, one can be certain that left leaning voters will feel as outraged as right leaning voters are feeling today.
I suspect that is what DJT will be urging today - that the Supreme Court review the appropriateness of the prosecution. Whatever happens - and I'd bet for the overturning - one can be sure that everyone will be even more energized for the November election.
I think DJT will want to slow down the appeal process. Go through the NY Appellate Court first. He wants to go into November as a Justice Impacted Individual.
-
The Supreme Court has long held, under a doctrine known as the “rule of lenity,” that “fair warning should be given to the world, in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed.” Thus, when the meaning of a criminal statute is unclear, the Constitution sometimes requires that statute to be read narrowly because an unclear criminal law did not give potential defendants “fair warning” that their conduct was illegal.
The current Court is divided about when this rule of lenity should apply, and whether it provides much protection at all to criminal defendants.
David French wrote on this [issue](lenity trump conviction).
-
6 point bump - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13480491/donald-trump-verdict-guilty-poll-positive.html
$1,000,000 per count, and 1/3 of the donors were new donors.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/31/trump-campaign-donations-record.html
@LuFins-Dad said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
6 point bump - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13480491/donald-trump-verdict-guilty-poll-positive.html
$1,000,000 per count, and 1/3 of the donors were new donors.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/31/trump-campaign-donations-record.html
Trump is playing 4D... dare I say, 5D chess right now.
-
-
6 point bump - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13480491/donald-trump-verdict-guilty-poll-positive.html
$1,000,000 per count, and 1/3 of the donors were new donors.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/31/trump-campaign-donations-record.html
@LuFins-Dad said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
6 point bump - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13480491/donald-trump-verdict-guilty-poll-positive.html
$1,000,000 per count, and 1/3 of the donors were new donors.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/31/trump-campaign-donations-record.html
The website crashed.
Wonder what the actual figures would be if that had not happened?
-
Ken - this is a NY criminal case. It would be very hard for him to get it to SCOTUS on the merits. You really think they’d grant cert because of who he is?
-
Since Trump is now a felon, does that mean he has to sell his 60% ownership of DJT stock? I believe you can't own more than 20% of a company as a felon.
-
Since Trump is now a felon, does that mean he has to sell his 60% ownership of DJT stock? I believe you can't own more than 20% of a company as a felon.
-
Since Trump is now a felon, does that mean he has to sell his 60% ownership of DJT stock? I believe you can't own more than 20% of a company as a felon.
@89th said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Since Trump is now a felon, does that mean he has to sell his 60% ownership of DJT stock? I believe you can't own more than 20% of a company as a felon.
Uh, no.
There are some brokerages that restrict the amount of stock they will sell to a felon and there are some insider trading laws that will cause the FTC to impose restrictions on running a publicly traded company if convicted, but nothing about owning a business.
The Brad
-
The really interesting thing is that if Trump was convicted in FL, he wouldn’t be allowed to vote in November, but because he was convicted in NY, which allows Justice Impacted Individuals to vote, he will be allowed to vote.
-
@89th said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Since Trump is now a felon, does that mean he has to sell his 60% ownership of DJT stock? I believe you can't own more than 20% of a company as a felon.
Uh, no.
There are some brokerages that restrict the amount of stock they will sell to a felon and there are some insider trading laws that will cause the FTC to impose restrictions on running a publicly traded company if convicted, but nothing about owning a business.
@LuFins-Dad said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
@89th said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Since Trump is now a felon, does that mean he has to sell his 60% ownership of DJT stock? I believe you can't own more than 20% of a company as a felon.
Uh, no.
There are some brokerages that restrict the amount of stock they will sell to a felon and there are some insider trading laws that will cause the FTC to impose restrictions on running a publicly traded company if convicted, but nothing about owning a business.
I'm sure you're right. I was skimming this from the SEC: https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/secg/bad-actor-small-entity-compliance-guide
-
More from @shipwreckedcrew
The theory that Bragg's Office ultimately pushed the most aggressively in the latter stages of the case and at closing was that the false business records were intented to cover up a NY state law crime of "conspiracy to promote the election of any person to public office by unlawful means."
The unlawful means was the filing of the false records to hide the NDA payments.
The "filing of false records" charge -- standing alone -- is a misdemeanor, barred by the statute of limitations.
The "conspiracy to promote the election" -- is a misdemeanor, barred by the statute of limitations.
It is only by COMBINING two misdemeanors -- neither of which could be prosecuted -- that the Democrat machine could create a felony charge that was within the longer statute of limitations.
-
@Mik said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
It seems nothing is beyond disclosing publicly anymore.
As an aside.
(that is why I have trouble believing any conspiracy theories. In a world where almost EVERYONE is willing to share ANYTHING, to have a conspiracy that would require hundreds/thousands of people to be involved yet nobody says a word is hard to believe.) -
Trump's lawyers speak:
“I think that the jury instructions had a very key flaw here, which is the falsification of business records had to be in furtherance of some other crime and there wasn’t really great instructions on what that other crime was,” Parlatore said in response to a question about whether the jury instructions might lead to an appeals court overturning the verdict.
“Under New York state law, they’re not required to say which it is. But when they do, the judge has to instruct them on that specific crime. And the problem here is they don’t have to prove that they actually committed that other crime. They don’t have to prove that they actually had [Federal Election Commission] violations, but they have to show that what they intended to do was in fact a crime. And that I think is really the shortfall in the jury instructions is the lack of an explanation to this jury as to the federal election law.”
CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig and criminal defense attorney Michael O’Mara on Friday said Trump’s appeal will plausibly be based on the case’s unprecedented nature and Merchan not sequestering the jury.
“I think there’s a great likelihood, and the reason why is there are a number of issues,” O’Mara said in response to a question about the likelihood of the appeal succeeding. “I have always complained about the way this jury was or was not handled during the trial. I think with the massive focus on this case that they should have been sequestered. They certainly should have been sequestered during the deliberations. I think they should have been sequestered for the week before.
My non-legal opinion is that another cause for appeal was in pre-trial motions denying the defense's request to call some witnesses.
-
Saw an interview with Dersh about Trump's lawyers. He said that some were quite good, while a few were lacking. It was his opinion that Trump would benefit from bringing in a couple of attorneys familiar with the New York appeal process.
That's all well and fine, but this is New York and any New York lawyer who represents Trump will be hounded.
