Posted on 04/25/2024 9:48:11 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
Your thoughts?
“We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. F. B. I. is trending in that direction.” - Harry S Truman)
It is not at all proper for courts to try to make laws or to read law school theories into the law and policy laid down by the Congress.
We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. F.B.I. is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex life scandles [sic] and plain blackmail, when they should be catching criminals.
May 12, 1945 | Harry S. Truman
Harry Truman Library (.gov)
https://www.trumanlibrary.gov › library › truman-papers
“The court ruled that the judge in the New York County trial prejudiced Weinstein with improper rulings, including allowing women to testify about allegations that were not part of the case.”
i’ve been wondering about that sort of thing for a while ... used to be, allegations that were not part of the crime being charged were NOT allowed in court because they were unfairly prejudicial ... i.e., WELLLL, we don’t ACTUALLY have that much evidence in this case to prove the defendant did anything, but a whole bunch of other people said he did some other stuff, so therefore he must be guilty in this case ...
John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh are going to have a nude wrestling match to decide who deserves the glory.
Pay per view is being discussed.
They don’t want to broadcast what a travesty this is.
“Very convincing proof that this case,as well as Fulton County,Miami and DC,is being run straight out of Rat Party Headquarters.”
Perhaps but not necessarily. The dems are also capable of operating independently to achieve their collective goals.
He doesn’t need to be at the SCOTUS. That’s what his attorneys are for. SCOTUS generally doesn’t deal directly with plaintiffs and defendants. His presence there would accomplish little if indeed anything at all.
Don’t forget Amy.
Are these nutbags alleging that Trump “stole” the 2016 election via skewed articles in the National Enquirer? I’m not following the logic.
There is no logic. Make no mistake, this Bragg circus is brought to you lock, stock, and barrel by Felonius Milhaus von Pantsuit.
This is her hail Mary to dirty up Trump and give her some talking points for the willing presstitutes. She’s a sore loser.
Rallies outside the courthouse every day, in which he presents to the working people and passersby of New York City his vision for America, how he would fix the damage caused by Biden. No need to comment on the case. There’s a gag order, after all. So instead he should outline how he’ll cut taxes, get rid of trans-meshugas, bring down inflation, fix education and street crime, stop wars and prevent new ones, etc., etc.
The lemonade he can make from this trial, the enthusiastic crowds outside the court house, his scrupulous adherence to the stupid gag order, will incentivize the judge to just do a directed verdict or summary judgment, and stop these threats against demoncrazy.
So sitting in a Manhattan courtroom listening to salacious BS having nothing to do with a crime is more important than attending a historic case at SCOTUS. Got it.
They found Trump's victim. Hillary. :)
What would he do if he were there? Tell his attorneys who actually know the law what to do?
I just posted this in another thread:
So, if business records were falsified, it boils down to non-payment of taxes he owed to the state.I'm trying to understand your hypothesis.
How is it that Trump owes taxes?
What Bragg is essentially doing is trying to declare negative campaign ads against a candidate's opponent as unlawfully influencing an election. Conversely, Bragg is also saying that suppressing negative stories by buying them and silencing them is also unlawfully influencing an election because it prevents the negative news from getting out and the opponent from running negative ads against the candidate. Bragg is saying that Trump, Cohen, and Pecker conspired to hush Stephanie Clifford and Karen McDougal. with payments that were campaign expenses.
- If Trump hired Cohen for legal services and paid a retainer to Cohen that he refreshed periodically, then isn't it Cohen who has to document the payments from Trump as income? Isn't it Cohen who has to pay income tax on the earnings from performing legal services for Trump? What is Trump's tax that is owed? If it's a sales tax on the consumption of legal services, isn't it on Cohen's law firm to collect the taxes and pass it on to the state?
I just did a quick search and New York does require lawyers to charge a sales tax on legal services.
- If Stephanie Clifford was paid $130,000 by Cohen for an NDA, isn't it Clifford who has to pay income taxes on the money? What is Trump's tax obligation for paying money to someone else?
- We don't know that Trump's business records were falsified; that's Bragg's allegation. Bragg needs Trump's business records to be falsified in order to call it a fraudulent activity in furtherance of another crime.
Without the other crime, Trump's business records are ordinary book-keeping entries. Even with another crime, they are still ordinary book-keeping entries. If Bragg thinks the book-keeping should have recorded the payments as campaign expenses, then he should have been pursuing a campaign finance violation charge, but he's not.
Bragg can't bring campaign finance violation charges because:
- Federal campaign finance violations are the sole jurisdiction of the Department of Justice or the Federal Elections Commission.
- New York State campaign finance violations are the sole jurisdiction of the New York State Public Campaign Finance Board.
That leaves Bragg with fraudulent records in furtherance of another crime. Bragg's problem is that he can't define that other crime beyond a reasonable doubt (he may get away with defining the crime within a New Yorker's doubt).
Bragg is also saying that Trump and Pecker used the National Enquirer to pay informants for information to plant negative stories about Hillary Clinton to harm her candidacy. Before Trump was elected, that used to be called "opposition research."
Hillary Clinton funneled cash payments through Marc Elias at the Perkins Coie law firm to pay former British agent Christopher Steele for the "Steele Dossier" and then planted that story in the American media. Nobody charged Clinton with falsifying records at Perkins Coie in furtherance of another crime, or conspiring with Perkins Coie and Buzzfeed.
Hope this helps.
-PJ
People of New York v. Harvey Weinstein, NY Ct App #24, (24 Apr 2024), Opinion of the Court (4-3) at pp. 39-40:
Even if we were to regard the evidence against defendant as “overwhelming,” there remains a “ ‘significant probability’ that, absent the trial court’s erroneous Molineux ruling, the jury would have acquitted the defendant” (Arafet, 13 NY3d at 467, quoting Crimmins, 36 NY2d at 241-242). And, though “harmless-error analysis in the context of Sandoval ‘does not involve speculation as to whether a defendant would have testified if the legal error had not occurred’ ” (Grant, 7 NY3d at 425, quoting People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236, 240 [1982]), the erroneous Sandoval determination here “might have affected defendant’s decision whether to testify and provide critical information” (Williams, 56 NY2d at 241). Thus, neither error was harmless.IV.
“How different is our own common law, which is the product of all the wisdom and humanity of all the ages. Under it the accused comes into a court of justice, panoplied in the presumption of innocence, which shields [them] until [their] guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. [Their] character can be thrown into the balance by no one but [themselves]. The incidents of [their] life, not connected with the crime charged, are [their] sacred possession. [They] face[ ] [their] accuser in the light of a distinct charge, with the assurance that no other will be, or can be, proved against [them]” (Molineux, 168 NY at 310).These words are no less true and vital today as they were when first written by this Court in 1901. Over a century later, we reaffirm that no person accused of illegality may be judged on proof of uncharged crimes that serve only to establish the accused’s propensity for criminal behavior. At trial, a defendant stands to account for the crimes as charged. Proof of prior crimes and uncharged bad acts are the rare exception to this fundamental rule of criminal law. Similarly, under Sandoval, cross-examination of the defendant with allegations concerning prior convictions or proof of prior “specific criminal, vicious or immoral acts” is impermissible except to the extent it bears on the defendant’s credibility. Thus, it is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant’s character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them.
The trial court’s rulings ran afoul of these time-honored rules of evidence. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and a new trial ordered.
The defense attorney was Arthur L. Aidala. Old fight fans may remember his grandfather Artie Aidala [d. 2000], who was a referee and judge at old Madison Square Garden for about four decades. Gramps was a judge at the first fight between Muhammed Ali and Joe Frazier.
I think that they’re saying that President Trump stole it by getting even one vote. They don’t need a bit of evidence, they just feel it. That makes it an open and shut case when put in front of democrat judges who don’t care about the law.
It’s not illegal to have an NDA.
It’s not illegal to post an NDA as a legal expense, since that’s what it is.
It’s not illegal to have papers and friends looking out for things that should be buried, since papers and friends do that all the time.
So, I’m having trouble finding what the crime is here.
“They are lawless 24/7”
You are correct. Sometimes they shouldn’t even though the law says they can’t. If they can’t, there is no record they did and that’s all they are getting in this. They impeached Trump time and again and all they got was news to use for the voters. And that’s all they wanted. And that’s all this is.
wy69
“It is not at all proper for courts to try to make laws or to read law school theories into the law and policy laid down by the Congress.”
But they do it anyway and nobody calls them on it. Liberals to gain percieved advantages (by voters) and conservatives to ignore as they are getting paid. (Too much to do nothing)
wy69
BUMP!
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.