The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today
-
Juror Misconduct?
-
This is a little easier to read
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPf5dMpW4AApx1f?format=jpg&name=large
-
-
https://newrepublic.com/post/182623/did-trump-admit-another-felony-probabation-interview
New York City Department of Probation officials questioned the convicted felon and Republican presidential nominee Tuesday in a presentencing interview, and part of the discussion concerned a gun registered to him in the state. Under federal law, convicted felons are not allowed to have guns or ammunition.
-
Should the SCOTUS’ “presidential immunity” ruling void the NY “hush money/falsification of business records” conviction?
Discuss.
@Axtremus said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Should the SCOTUS’ “presidential immunity” ruling void the NY “hush money/falsification of business records” conviction?
Discuss.
Not at all. Happened as candidate Trump, and had nothing to do with his duties as president.
It should be voided for myriad other reasons.
-
@Axtremus said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Should the SCOTUS’ “presidential immunity” ruling void the NY “hush money/falsification of business records” conviction?
Discuss.
Not at all. Happened as candidate Trump, and had nothing to do with his duties as president.
It should be voided for myriad other reasons.
@LuFins-Dad said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
@Axtremus said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Should the SCOTUS’ “presidential immunity” ruling void the NY “hush money/falsification of business records” conviction?
Discuss.
Not at all. Happened as candidate Trump, and had nothing to do with his duties as president.
It should be voided for myriad other reasons.
Pretty much, although I saw where Trump's lawyers were going back through the case to see if anything applied.
-
Here’s what I don’t understand, doesn’t the change of the statute of limitations after the fact violate the principle of ex post facto law changes? They can change the statute of limitations going forward, but not after. That was settled in Stogner V California
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
To me, this just shows a lack of common sense, judgement, etc etc on the part of President Trump. I mean, come on.
There are those who say that Trump's First Amendment Right is being infringed. I'm not sure how that plays out when he insults the judge.
OTOH, pointing out that the judge's daughter is a DNC fundraiser and that his refusal to recuse himself should be allowed. She also has worked on the Biden and Harris campaign.
The judge’s daughter, Loren Merchan, is president of Authentic Campaigns, a Chicago-based progressive political consulting firm whose top clients include Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who was the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment trial, and the Senate Majority PAC, a major party fundraiser.
“Authentic Campaigns, and thus the judge’s daughter, is actively making money from this sham attack against President Trump, rendering Judge Merchan conflicted out,” Trump spokesman Steven Cheung told The Post, adding that evidence of bias is even clearer now than it was in August when Merchan rejected Trump’s first recusal motion.
If the judge orders him jailed, what do you think would be the effect on his campaign? IMO, it can't possibly hurt.
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/27/the-gag-and-the-goad-trump-should-appeal-latest-gag-order/
My opposition to past gag orders was based on the constitutional right of defendants to criticize their prosecutions. Courts have gradually expanded both the scope and use of such orders. It has gone from being relatively rare to commonplace. However, the use to gag the leading candidate for the presidency in the final months of the campaign only magnifies those concerns.
There is a division on courts in dealing with such challenges involving politicians. For example, a court struggled with those issues in the corruption trial of Rep. Harold E. Ford Sr. (D–Tenn.). The district court barred Ford from making any “extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication,” including criticism of the motives of the government or basis, merits, or evidence of the prosecution.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the gag order as overbroad and stressed that any such limits on free speech should be treated as “presumptively void and may be upheld only on the basis of a clear showing that an exercise of First Amendment rights will interfere with the rights of the parties to a fair trial.”
This order allows for criticism of the case and both Merchan and Bragg. However, you have key figures like Cohen and Coangelo who are already central figures in this political campaign. In Cohen’s case, he has actively engaged in a campaign to block Trump politically and has done countless interviews on this case as part of the legal campaign.
-
BTW, that's Congresswoman Elsie Stefanik.
If Donald J. Trump is elected, and especially if the GOP retains control of the House...Even better if the GOP controls House, Senate and Executive...I submit that there are serious ethical, judicial and civil rights violations within the State of New York. I think it only appropriate that the Federal Government do a thorough investigation on what appears to be a corrupt system and ensure that no illicit funds are changing hands, federal elections are not being interfered with, that no collusion or conspiracy exists between state and former DOJ/White House official to interfere with Federal elections and that the city of New York or the state of New York is attempting to supersede Federal election law.
-
Well, he’s still not a convicted felon, and won’t be until after the election.
I’m sure the campaigns will respect that fact and be precise in their language.
-
Well, he’s still not a convicted felon, and won’t be until after the election.
I’m sure the campaigns will respect that fact and be precise in their language.
@LuFins-Dad said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Well, he’s still not a convicted felon, and won’t be until after the election.
I’m sure the campaigns will respect that fact and be precise in their language.
One of Trump's former attorneys was on Gutfeld! last night and besides the obligatory yaks, he'd occasionally was serious....They were talking about disinformation and what actually constitutes it.
It was his opinion that NYT vs. Sullivan needed to be revisited by SCOTUS, in light of our current access to information on the internet. With the ability to post a headline or a story in a matter of seconds, then change that story is seconds and then possibly take the story down in seconds, it was his contention that news creators should try their best to get things right about public figures, even if their choice in stories was biased. And that if a story was wrong or if a headline was intentionally misleading, creators should not be able to hide behind the 1st Amendment and should be open to suit for damages.
