Posted on 06/03/2024 8:06:55 AM PDT by AnthonySoprano
In fact, the Act calls out a 5 year statute of limitations that tolls before Trump in charged in 2023.
Wouldn’t this be precedent for border states to enforce immigration laws ?
Weak sauce.
Ping
The Supreme Court is going to put a stop to this charade long before the sentencing hearing.
bfl
This is huge
Merchan removed a key element of the crime and said it didn’t need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Shouldn’t the fact that this judge made a charge a violation of a Federal Act make it ripe to be turned over to SCOTUS?
SCOTUS would need to be presented a reason to hear the case.
The left just keep stealing from Trump, why? Because they can, because they control all the power and can ruin anyone that tries to help him. Laws? The left don’t recognize no steenking laws when it comes to them, but when it comes to prosecuting others, they make up their own laws! H3ck, they invent new laws in order to persecute those that they despise, like making something that has run past the statute of limitations “legal” to prosecute because of their new law!
The ,eft have waged a hostile takeover of this nation- again, why? Because they can. Just like when foreigners invade a country with bad intentions to overthrow the gov, the left have done so here and fully intend to overthrow our once great nation.
Refute THIS.
I’ll get around to your lame responses elsewhere, you slimy liberal toad.
Absolutely.
And he can’t modify Federal Laws. He instructed them - a violation of the FECA Act.
NY appellate courts aren’t qualified to interpret federal laws and its outside their Jurisdiction.
What reason could that be? I am no attorney.
Where are Trump’s lawyers?
You might check what Mark Levin has been saying about this.
.
The Jurors aren’t allowed to open up law books. They only have his instructions and description of the FECA Act, which is wrong on numerous levels.
The Supreme Court is going to put a stop to this charade long before the sentencing hearing.“
You’re dreaming, they should but they won’t.
The other most egregious act by this judge was in speaking against the need for the FEC expert (a former chair, IIRC) to testify. The defense should have still requested his testimony to get a formal Merchan denial on record.
Look I am not a lawyer but even I could recognize the instructions to jury just about told them bring back guilty
Basically, he said pick one.
How can Trump defend himself when it wasn’t determined what the crime was until the end? And it turns out it was one of three possible crimes?
And if you look at them categorically, not one is a crime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.