The New York Kangaroo Court Case Against Trump

[Ironcitysteelers]

Whether true or not it’s not a crime.

The Democrat’s darling ****** an intern in the Oval Office with his daughter right upstairs, perjured himself and we were told that’s his personal life and none of our business. Ain’t no hypocrite like a Dem hypocrite.

One could almost say he raped her.

 

[Booted]

This lying mother ******. The last 15 seconds of this clip makes me want to punch him in the face more than I normally do.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

Right on cue, and planned, all of the liberal rags are pretending to be concerned for the Republican party, expressing the need for Trump to be replaced before it's too late.

 

[Booted]

I will admit I'm a little disappointed. I thought for sure this is the big event that would draw tibs out from under his rock. I was expecting a grandiose return not unlike this...

 

[warriors42]

so we fail to support our biggest Ally in the middle east and tell them to stand down from defending themselves while in the same breath telling Ukraine that it's ok to strike Russian territory. yep makes total sense.

I wonder if he would feel the same way about the Justice system if Hunter was facing the same scenario that Trump faced with a hand picked judge and jury who's only JOB was to convict.

That smile he gave at the end truly looked evil. There is gonna be a special place for him when this life is over.

 

[Ironcitysteelers]

This lying mother ******. The last 15 seconds of this clip makes me want to punch him in the face more than I normally do.

Who was it, won’t open for me

 

[IndySteel]

This lying mother ******. The last 15 seconds of this clip makes me want to punch him in the face more than I normally do.

It makes me want to strangle him with his diaper more than I normally do.

 

[IndySteel]

Who was it, won’t open for me

A reporter asked him for his response to Trump saying he’s a political prisoner targeted by Biden, or something similar. His response was a big smile, and then he he walked away.

 

[Stewey]

And Trumps inability to keep his friends, associates and appointees from turning on him during the same time, that’s not on him, that’s on them? He just has bad luck? Or there’s a legitimate reason for it?

And this is relevant how?
This is a clear case of selective prosecution, and election interference. The weaponization of the justice system in order to take out a political opponent.

You really need to come down from atop your imaginary perch of liberal superiority and concede to the fact what has truly been the weaponization of the justice system.

 

[str8liner]

If he gets elected and we get control of Congress, what they need to do is govern, not play games. There may need to be some laws passed to prevent **** like this from happening. More lawmaking less political witch hunts.

The Dems always play the games and still win.

This is why The limp **** Pubs always lose.

 

[IndySteel]

The Dems always play the games and still win.

This is why The limp **** Pubs always lose.

At least half of them are really democrats. They just cheated and ran as republicans, lying the whole time. Look how they vote. Case in point: Todd Young of Indiana, that motherfuuker.

 

[IndySteel]

Romney
McCain
Cheaney
Kinzinger… the list is long. **** the two party system that steals our tax dollars for themselves and other countries. Vote MAGA or you are part of the problem.

 

[Troglodyte]

And this is relevant how?

It speaks volumes to his character.

This is a clear case of selective prosecution, and election interference. The weaponization of the justice system in order to take out a political opponent.

And easy prosecution. Committing a crime with a paper trail and a partner who turns against you is low lying fruit for a prosecutor.

You really need to come down from atop your imaginary perch of liberal superiority and concede to the fact what has truly been the weaponization of the justice system.

It’s the least of his crimes and the feds took a pass because of that. You need to concede that Trump is, and has always been, a sociopathic, corrupt narcissist.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Did Kamala make that diagram?

you'd have to look at it under a black light for a hidden map of Hawaii to be sure.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

"voir dire", Latin for speak the truth.

One of the seated jurors stated that they despised Trump before being seated. Just imagine what the one's recused must have said.

That they like the Constitution.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Correct. It's about destroying a political opponent. It always has been, from the time Trump took the oath of office.

Answer: No. They are not running for president. There is nothing to gain politically.

It's about destroying a non-establishment candidate. They want the point made, if you aren't establishment, shut your mouth or your life will be destroyed

 

[Steeltime]

And if Trump had reimbursed Cohen for hiring a hit man to snuff out Daniels, that wouldn’t have been a crime either?

Uhh, paying Clifford (that's her name) for an NDA is not the same as paying somebody to kill her.

Guessing you may have missed that day week year forever in fake law school.

Please do show where I said he was obligated to testify.

By stating, "Trump consistently complained of the injustice going on inside the courtroom, but when given the opportunity to take the stand, he passed. Why? It should have been as simple as telling the truth. Right?"

You suggested he testify in a clown-car proceeding with a judge who is unhinged and a prosecutor allowed to ignore every rule of evidence and 225 years of criminal procedure in this nation. YOU said that. I pointed out why you are dumb. Yes, yes, that is basically a full-time job, I get it. Oh, and you repeat this inane pablum right here ...

The prosecution meticulously laid out how and when the crimes occurred using multiple witnesses. It was up to the defense to raise reasonable about the prosecutions case. Who better to do that than the person (supposedly) being wrongfully accused?

Two points. You have no clue what the "prosecution laid out." None. Zero. I was the one who informed you that paying Clifford for an NDA is legal. You actually believed that conduct was criminal before I told you that was not a crime. I had to tell you a second time in all caps, at which point I believe a 2nd grader explained it to you.

Second, you once again raise the utterly imbecilic argument that "tRuMp ShOuLd HaVe TeStIfYyEd" despite me reaming you not long ago as to what that claim is so uttery dumb as to be in the Dumb Hall of Fame.

This isn’t a jury deliberation. You know damn well why the defense didn’t have Trump take the stand.

Because the grotesquely improper behavior in every respect by the judge and the prosecution and the flamingly improper handling of every aspect of this mockery of the judicial process made that impossible to do without a slew of grotesque errors, endless questioning by Fat Alvin and the gang about irrelevant matters, with no possible upside to Trump and all solely to drag Trump through the mud for political purposes.

I thought even someone dumb as you could figure that out. Obviously I overrated your microscopic intellect.

And now there’s zero chance of a not guilty verdict, “counselor”.

The proceeding was a clown show, as I explained in my original post. It was a joke and an embarrassment to the American judicial process.

You know nothing - literally not one thing, zero - about criminal law or procedure. Since I was the one who told you that paying somebody for an NDA is legal, let me also impart a bit more wisdom: the 6th amendment requires that the prosecution lay out the charges in sufficient detail to permit the defendant to gather evidence for the defense. This indictment did NOT name the underlying crime, ever, and instead incorporated the entire New York State penal code by reference. Why? Because Fat Alvin did not have a crime to back up the allegation and sought to make up a crime during the trial.

That is why for the first time - literally the first time - we heard the argument that the bookkeeping entry for paying Cohen was "tax fraud." The prosecution never made that allegation before trial, presented no evidence of tax fraud during the trial, but the contemptible clown Merchan included that in the instructions to the jury and allowed that argument to go to the jury.

Stalin had more viable criminal proceedings under his watch.

Do explain how the origin of the crime is irrelevant in a criminal trial.

*sigh*

Once again, you missed that decade in fake law school. Every trial - civil and criminal - includes restrictions on evidence of prior acts for the reason the person being sued or prosecuted has to answer the claim or charge asserted, not for every alleged bad act in his life. The rationale is that it is fundamentally unfair and indeed unconstitutional to admit evidence of prior actions because the jury is likely to punish the defendant for some uncharged crime or unasserted claim, where the defendant had no chance to prepare a defense for that allegation, where a lot of the evidence is stale or gone, and where key documents and witnesses are not around any more because nothing was asserted.

One of the most common discussions among state courts is how and when evidence of prior acts can be admitted. The Evidence Code in most states provides very narrow circumstances for admission of such evidence. For example, California Evidence Code section 1101 provides, "(a) Except as provided in this section and in Sections 1102, 1103, 1108, and 1109, evidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her character (whether in the form of an opinion, evidence of reputation, or evidence of specific instances of his or her conduct) is inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion."

The payment to Clifford was not a crime, is not a crime, and was not the "origin" of anything, you moron.

What moron is arguing that the defense played its cards right after a supposedly innocent man was found guilty?

This one is easy: You have proven beyond reasonable doubt that you are a moron. Continue with your moroning.

Again, your claim that this was a fair and balanced trial simply underscores how ignorant you are. The corrupt prosecutor and corrupt judge made a not guilty verdict impossible. The judge allowed the prosecutor, over objection, to tell the jury that paying Clifford constituted a violation of Federal election laws when in actuality (1) it did not, (2) the Federal government is the sole arbiter of Federal election violations and determined there was no violation, and (3) the prosecution precluded the defense from introducing evidence from the former header of the FEC that any payment for an NDA would NOT be a violation of election laws.

So it’s not really about Trump’s guilt? Didn’t think so.

You should have stopped at "didn't think." We could have found common ground.

Let me explain in a way even a bloated imbecile can understand: farcical political prosecutions like this undermine the fabric of our nation. More and more we see that the law does not apply to the corrupt (D)imbos, and they are held to a different standard. (D)imbos abuse the legal process with nutcases like Carroll and corrupt judges like Merchan and Engeron. These people are burning down the pillars of this nation because they are too greedy, stupid and corrupt to realize what they are doing, or more likely don't care.

Trump committed no crime. He also did not rape some weirdo in a busy department store in the middle of the day and where the nutjob who makes that claim "forgot" about it for 20 years.

Question: Are the prosecutions of Bob Mendendez and Hunter Biden also corrupt and political?

Make the analogy comparable:

1. Did a legislature have to change the statute of limitations to permit the claim to proceed?
2. Did the prosecuting attorney fail to tell those two what their illegal action consisted of?
3. Were the cases shopped around and brought before the most anti-Menendez or anti-Hunter judge and jury available?
4. Were the cases then litigated in a grotesque fashion that violated pretty much every norm for such cases?
5. Are the allegations such that 99% of the public does not even know what the defendant is alleged to have done wrong, to the point somebody posted a comment and does not even know that what he referenced as to why the prosecution is taking place is in fact legal?
6. Or are the allegations so plain that they can be summed up in a couple of words: accepted bribe, or lied on gun application?
7. And did the prosecutors for the cases specifically campaign on a promise of "I'm going to prosecute Menendez" or "I'm going to prosecute Hunter"?

 

[Steeltime]

Look at what this guy says about the case against Trump. Must be some right-wing MAGA extremist:

Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. That’s not on the jury. That’s on the prosecutors who chose to bring the case and the judge who let it play out as it did.

The district attorney’s press office and its flaks often proclaim that falsification of business records charges are “commonplace” and, indeed, the office’s “bread and butter.” That’s true only if you draw definitional lines so broad as to render them meaningless. Of course the DA charges falsification quite frequently; virtually any fraud case involves some sort of fake documentation.

But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge.

Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega. Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor — two years — likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017.

So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)

In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else.

Elie Honig, CNN Legal Correspondent, on Ridiculous Trump Trial

Oh, CNN legal analyst ... goddammit, can we stop with all the MAGA on CNN?!?

Right, Floggy?

 

[Troglodyte]

Uhh, paying Clifford (that's her name) for an NDA is not the same as paying somebody to kill her.

Guessing you may have missed that day week year forever in fake law school.



By stating, "Trump consistently complained of the injustice going on inside the courtroom, but when given the opportunity to take the stand, he passed. Why? It should have been as simple as telling the truth. Right?"

You suggested he testify in a clown-car proceeding with a judge who is unhinged and a prosecutor allowed to ignore every rule of evidence and 225 years of criminal procedure in this nation. YOU said that. I pointed out why you are dumb. Yes, yes, that is basically a full-time job, I get it. Oh, and you repeat this inane pablum right here ...



Two points. You have no clue what the "prosecution laid out." None. Zero. I was the one who informed you that paying Clifford for an NDA is legal. You actually believed that conduct was criminal before I told you that was not a crime. I had to tell you a second time in all caps, at which point I believe a 2nd grader explained it to you.

Second, you once again raise the utterly imbecilic argument that "tRuMp ShOuLd HaVe TeStIfYyEd" despite me reaming you not long ago as to what that claim is so uttery dumb as to be in the Dumb Hall of Fame.



Because the grotesquely improper behavior in every respect by the judge and the prosecution and the flamingly improper handling of every aspect of this mockery of the judicial process made that impossible to do without a slew of grotesque errors, endless questioning by Fat Alvin and the gang about irrelevant matters, with no possible upside to Trump and all solely to drag Trump through the mud for political purposes.

I thought even someone dumb as you could figure that out. Obviously I overrated your microscopic intellect.



The proceeding was a clown show, as I explained in my original post. It was a joke and an embarrassment to the American judicial process.

You know nothing - literally not one thing, zero - about criminal law or procedure. Since I was the one who told you that paying somebody for an NDA is legal, let me also impart a bit more wisdom: the 6th amendment requires that the prosecution lay out the charges in sufficient detail to permit the defendant to gather evidence for the defense. This indictment did NOT name the underlying crime, ever, and instead incorporated the entire New York State penal code by reference. Why? Because Fat Alvin did not have a crime to back up the allegation and sought to make up a crime during the trial.

That is why for the first time - literally the first time - we heard the argument that the bookkeeping entry for paying Cohen was "tax fraud." The prosecution never made that allegation before trial, presented no evidence of tax fraud during the trial, but the contemptible clown Merchan included that in the instructions to the jury and allowed that argument to go to the jury.

Stalin had more viable criminal proceedings under his watch.



*sigh*

Once again, you missed that decade in fake law school. Every trial - civil and criminal - includes restrictions on evidence of prior acts for the reason the person being sued or prosecuted has to answer the claim or charge asserted, not for every alleged bad act in his life. The rationale is that it is fundamentally unfair and indeed unconstitutional to admit evidence of prior actions because the jury is likely to punish the defendant for some uncharged crime or unasserted claim, where the defendant had no chance to prepare a defense for that allegation, where a lot of the evidence is stale or gone, and where key documents and witnesses are not around any more because nothing was asserted.

One of the most common discussions among state courts is how and when evidence of prior acts can be admitted. The Evidence Code in most states provides very narrow circumstances for admission of such evidence. For example, California Evidence Code section 1101 provides, "(a) Except as provided in this section and in Sections 1102, 1103, 1108, and 1109, evidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her character (whether in the form of an opinion, evidence of reputation, or evidence of specific instances of his or her conduct) is inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion."

The payment to Clifford was not a crime, is not a crime, and was not the "origin" of anything, you moron.



This one is easy: You have proven beyond reasonable doubt that you are a moron. Continue with your moroning.

Again, your claim that this was a fair and balanced trial simply underscores how ignorant you are. The corrupt prosecutor and corrupt judge made a not guilty verdict impossible. The judge allowed the prosecutor, over objection, to tell the jury that paying Clifford constituted a violation of Federal election laws when in actuality (1) it did not, (2) the Federal government is the sole arbiter of Federal election violations and determined there was no violation, and (3) the prosecution precluded the defense from introducing evidence from the former header of the FEC that any payment for an NDA would NOT be a violation of election laws.



You should have stopped at "didn't think." We could have found common ground.

Let me explain in a way even a bloated imbecile can understand: farcical political prosecutions like this undermine the fabric of our nation. More and more we see that the law does not apply to the corrupt (D)imbos, and they are held to a different standard. (D)imbos abuse the legal process with nutcases like Carroll and corrupt judges like Merchan and Engeron. These people are burning down the pillars of this nation because they are too greedy, stupid and corrupt to realize what they are doing, or more likely don't care.

Trump committed no crime. He also did not rape some weirdo in a busy department store in the middle of the day and where the nutjob who makes that claim "forgot" about it for 20 years.



Make the analogy comparable:

1. Did a legislature have to change the statute of limitations to permit the claim to proceed?
2. Did the prosecuting attorney fail to tell those two what their illegal action consisted of?
3. Were the cases shopped around and brought before the most anti-Menendez or anti-Hunter judge and jury available?
4. Were the cases then litigated in a grotesque fashion that violated pretty much every norm for such cases?
5. Are the allegations such that 99% of the public does not even know what the defendant is alleged to have done wrong, to the point somebody posted a comment and does not even know that what he referenced as to why the prosecution is taking place is in fact legal?
6. Or are the allegations so plain that they can be summed up in a couple of words: accepted bribe, or lied on gun application?
7. And did the prosecutors for the cases specifically campaign on a promise of "I'm going to prosecute Menendez" or "I'm going to prosecute Hunter"?

So you spent the better part of your day putting that together! Much like Trump, you’re unhinged.

As I’ve explained to Tim many times, when you feel compelled to reply to a few sentences with multiple paragraphs, you’re protesting too much.

Again, a long paper trail and a partner in crime (his personal lawyer of 12 year no less) testifying against Trump made a not guilty verdict, short of an incredibly naive or biased jury, impossible.

 

[Confluence]

So you spent the better part of your day putting that together! Much like Trump, you’re unhinged.

As I’ve explained to Tim many times, when you feel compelled to reply to a few sentences with multiple paragraphs, you’re protesting too much.

Again, a long paper trail and a partner in crime (his personal lawyer of 12 year no less) testifying against Trump made a not guilty verdict, short of an incredibly naive or biased jury, impossible.

https://images.app.goo.gl/1WyxrQw613cMR9uC9

 

[oneforthebus]

So you spent the better part of your day putting that together! Much like Trump, you’re unhinged.

As I’ve explained to Tim many times, when you feel compelled to reply to a few sentences with multiple paragraphs, you’re protesting too much.

Again, a long paper trail and a partner in crime (his personal lawyer of 12 year no less) testifying against Trump made a not guilty verdict, short of an incredibly naive or biased jury, impossible.

What made the guilty verdict possible is a judge who disallowed the most logical defense, who would not allow the jury to hear about the complexities of campaign finance law, who allowed the jury to not be unanimous in determining any underlying crime that boosted these charges to a felony, who rejected a change of venue despite a jury pool that voted and regularly polls almost 100% against a well known public figure…I could go on but there are so many unfair things about this trial and I’m guessing sentencing will be one more while violent criminals roam the streets of NYC at will.
Majorities of Republicans and Independents understand this is politically motivated. Only Dims think it’s fair.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

So you spent the better part of your day putting that together! Much like Trump, you’re unhinged.

As I’ve explained to Tim many times, when you feel compelled to reply to a few sentences with multiple paragraphs, you’re protesting too much.

Again, a long paper trail and a partner in crime (his personal lawyer of 12 year no less) testifying against Trump made a not guilty verdict, short of an incredibly naive or biased jury, impossible.

No one says absolutely nothing in so few words than you do.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

What made the guilty verdict possible is a judge who disallowed the most logical defense, who would not allow the jury to hear about the complexities of campaign finance law, who allowed the jury to not be unanimous in determining any underlying crime that boosted these charges to a felony, who rejected a change of venue despite a jury pool that voted and regularly polls almost 100% against a well known public figure…I could go on but there are so many unfair things about this trial and I’m guessing sentencing will be one more while violent criminals roam the streets of NYC at will.
Majorities of Republicans and Independents understand this is politically motivated. Only Dims think it’s fair.

I don't believe NY has the death penalty, but I'm guessing that statute could be waved in this case.
Maybe 34 life sentences would be appropriate for these heinous crimes?

 

[Troglodyte]

Look at what this guy says about the case against Trump. Must be some right-wing MAGA extremist:



Elie Honig, CNN Legal Correspondent, on Ridiculous Trump Trial

Oh, CNN legal analyst ... goddammit, can we stop with all the MAGA on CNN?!?

Right, Floggy?

“That’s NOT on the jury”.

As for the charges, it’s like when they charged Al Capone with tax evasion… a century ago. Cry me a river.

 

[Troglodyte]

What made the guilty verdict possible is a judge who disallowed the most logical defense, who would not allow the jury to hear about the complexities of campaign finance law, who allowed the jury to not be unanimous in determining any underlying crime that boosted these charges to a felony, who rejected a change of venue despite a jury pool that voted and regularly polls almost 100% against a well known public figure…I could go on but there are so many unfair things about this trial and I’m guessing sentencing will be one more while violent criminals roam the streets of NYC at will.
Majorities of Republicans and Independents understand this is politically motivated. Only Dims think it’s fair.

I prefer to think of it as karma.